MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 31, 2019 16:24:02 GMT
This event is designed to inform executives on cybersecurity, as well as security practitioners on how to "mitigate, detect, and respond to cyber attacks."
And they've invited Hillary Clinton to be their keynote speaker at this years cybersecurity summit.
Given Clinton's past experience in this arena ( being investigated by the FBI etc), this is just...unbelievable, lol. They are now both the laughing stock of the entire IT community. Who thought this was a good idea? Seriously!? I had to double check the source to make sure this wasn't The Onion or Babylon Bee!
To understand the significance here, it would be like Donald Trump speaking at a rape victim's conference or having Bill Clinton keynote an abstinence conference.
I would expect her talk to range topics like:
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 31, 2019 16:25:07 GMT
Maybe she’s supposed to be a cautionary tale of what not to do?
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 31, 2019 16:26:47 GMT
That would involve her admitting she did anything wrong which would likely bring indictment since her handling of government emails blah blah blah you don't want to hear it all again...
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 31, 2019 16:27:42 GMT
Well they could have Jared talk about how ‘safe’ Whatsapp is ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Q_m8lDOvc_3Le3r1GKdf.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 31, 2019 16:28:16 GMT
That would involve her admitting she did anything wrong which would likely bring indictment since her handling of government emails blah blah blah you don't want to hear it all again... no I don’t Especially since worse is currently happening
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 31, 2019 16:29:35 GMT
That would involve her admitting she did anything wrong which would likely bring indictment since her handling of government emails blah blah blah you don't want to hear it all again... no I don’t Especially since worse is currently happening No argument there.
|
|
|
Post by yivit on May 31, 2019 18:28:05 GMT
We're a fireeye customer and this choice baffles us.
|
|
PrettyInPeank
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,691
Jun 25, 2014 21:31:58 GMT
|
Post by PrettyInPeank on May 31, 2019 18:31:00 GMT
Admitting there was a weakness in security that was breached by Russians is not an admission of guilt, and certainly doesn't warrant indictments.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 31, 2019 18:46:05 GMT
Admitting there was a weakness in security that was breached by Russians is not an admission of guilt, and certainly doesn't warrant indictments. That's polite. "Grossly negligent" are the words Comey used in the original testimony though they were later watered down to "extremely careless", likely because a gross negligence charge actually has legal ramifications. Had those words not been changed, she certainly may have faced charges.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 15, 2024 18:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 15:48:52 GMT
Admitting there was a weakness in security that was breached by Russians is not an admission of guilt, and certainly doesn't warrant indictments. That's polite. "Grossly negligent" are the words Comey used in the original testimony though they were later watered down to "extremely careless", likely because a gross negligence charge actually has legal ramifications. Had those words not been changed, she certainly may have faced charges.
Exactly.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,984
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jun 5, 2019 15:54:49 GMT
The campaign and Podesta aside, was Clinton's private server ever breached? I mean, I know she violated State Department protocol (and yes, this is the moment I'll mention Whatsapp and Ivanka's emails because I guess it's not gross negligence if your last name isn't Clinton) but did the Russian government or any other bad actor actually hack Hilary's private server?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 5, 2019 15:58:32 GMT
huh. reading their explanation for it (which is the one that counts), choosing her to participate makes sense to me. Of course, people who don't LIKE her will choose to think what they will about the choice, regardless of the fact that she is a past Secretary of State. Let's face it-- unfortunately, until the end of time Clinton will be associated with 'emails and servers' no matter WHAT else she ever did in her professional career. So it's not like they could have waited a few years and invited her later- the controversy and comedians would still have been having a field day.
from a story explaining FireEye's choice:
“FireEye has a history of hosting past Secretary of State speakers (i.e. last year was Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell in the past, etc.). We’ve also hosted many individuals that have been involved in or a victim of cyber attacks in the past (i.e Frank Blake from Home Depot last year),” Simons wrote.
Simons proceeded to add that it is his belief that the question-and-answer format will provide for hard questions and insightful dialogue, rather than simply accepting prepared talking points from Clinton.
“When looking at the event through those two lens, having her do a Q&A (she is not speaking with prepared remarks) with our CEO seems a reasonable approach,” Simons continued. “Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged culture, the polarizing political lens seems to be the most prominent.”
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jun 5, 2019 16:22:45 GMT
huh. reading their explanation for it (which is the one that counts), choosing her to participate makes sense to me. Of course, people who don't LIKE her will choose to think what they will about the choice, regardless of the fact that she is a past Secretary of State. Let's face it-- unfortunately, until the end of time Clinton will be associated with 'emails and servers' no matter WHAT else she ever did in her professional career. So it's not like they could have waited a few years and invited her later- the controversy and comedians would still have been having a field day. from a story explaining FireEye's choice: “FireEye has a history of hosting past Secretary of State speakers (i.e. last year was Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell in the past, etc.). We’ve also hosted many individuals that have been involved in or a victim of cyber attacks in the past (i.e Frank Blake from Home Depot last year),” Simons wrote.
Simons proceeded to add that it is his belief that the question-and-answer format will provide for hard questions and insightful dialogue, rather than simply accepting prepared talking points from Clinton. “When looking at the event through those two lens, having her do a Q&A (she is not speaking with prepared remarks) with our CEO seems a reasonable approach,” Simons continued. “Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged culture, the polarizing political lens seems to be the most prominent.” That makes perfect sense.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 16:35:31 GMT
The campaign and Podesta aside, was Clinton's private server ever breached? I mean, I know she violated State Department protocol (and yes, this is the moment I'll mention Whatsapp and Ivanka's emails because I guess it's not gross negligence if your last name isn't Clinton) but did the Russian government or any other bad actor actually hack Hilary's private server? As if another government would step forward and admit they have them. And to answer your question, yes. If one was discovered, it is an almost certainty that there are others that weren't. That is the law of IT.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Jun 5, 2019 16:40:18 GMT
Good thing people are still focused on Hillary and those fucking emails.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 15, 2024 18:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 16:47:45 GMT
The campaign and Podesta aside, was Clinton's private server ever breached? I mean, I know she violated State Department protocol (and yes, this is the moment I'll mention Whatsapp and Ivanka's emails because I guess it's not gross negligence if your last name isn't Clinton) but did the Russian government or any other bad actor actually hack Hilary's private server? As if another government would step forward and admit they have them. And to answer your question, yes. If one was discovered, it is an almost certainty that there are others that weren't. That is the law of IT. And it is also a fact that is no such thing as a totally secured server. That is the reality of IT. The fact that she used her own server was no more of a security risk then if she sent all her emails through the State Department’s.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 17:20:31 GMT
As if another government would step forward and admit they have them. And to answer your question, yes. If one was discovered, it is an almost certainty that there are others that weren't. That is the law of IT. And it is also a fact that is no such thing as a totally secured server. That is the reality of IT. The fact that she used her own server was no more of a security risk then if she sent all her emails through the State Department’s.
This is just...wrong. On a lot of levels.
The biggest issue was Clinton's server operating outside of the security fence provided by the State Department. The State Department IT security team's entire purpose for existence is to monitor for vulnerabilities and breach attempts. It also offers the protection of the NSA as well. A private server in a basement of a house has none of these things.
Have you ever heard of Einstein 3? A level of protection acting as an intrusion-detection system for government communications conceived by then President Bush and put into action by then President Obama in 2009? Also not available on a private server.
Clinton's private server was basically out on the open prairie with nothing but a shotgun to protect it whereas there was a fully armed army fort it should have been in for all the same practical reasons; manpower, resources, protection, etc, ad nauseam.
It was a huge security risk.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 18:51:41 GMT
Good thing people are still focused on Hillary and those fucking emails. The only reason it's come up again is because she was invited to this cybersecurity conference as its keynote speaker. I mean, if the sole reason was to bring attention to the event, she's definitely doing her job but they both are literally the laughing stock of the IT sector right now.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 5, 2019 19:02:37 GMT
but hey-- DT's family are totally good with using THEIR own cell phones and unsecure apps to do THEIR communications, because, WHY, again!?
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 19:07:33 GMT
but hey-- DT's family are totally good with using THEIR own cell phones and unsecure apps to do THEIR communications, because, WHY, again!? Absolutely not!!!
This thread is about FireEye and Hillary Clinton...why you dragging Trump into it?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 5, 2019 19:18:41 GMT
well, why are you laughing at the fact that they chose Clinton to speak, then? It says right in their press release WHY they chose her. She is a former Secretary of State, and someone who has been personally affected by a data breach. Why is that such a laughing-stock choice? It doesn't say she's speaking as a cybersecurity expert, for gosh sakes. Just that she's speaking.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 15, 2024 18:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 19:19:49 GMT
And it is also a fact that is no such thing as a totally secured server. That is the reality of IT. The fact that she used her own server was no more of a security risk then if she sent all her emails through the State Department’s.
This is just...wrong. On a lot of levels.
The biggest issue was Clinton's server operating outside of the security fence provided by the State Department. The State Department IT security team's entire purpose for existence is to monitor for vulnerabilities and breach attempts. It also offers the protection of the NSA as well. A private server in a basement of a house has none of these things.
Have you ever heard of Einstein 3? A level of protection acting as an intrusion-detection system for government communications conceived by then President Bush and put into action by then President Obama in 2009? Also not available on a private server.
Clinton's private server was basically out on the open prairie with nothing but a shotgun to protect it whereas there was a fully armed army fort it should have been in for all the same practical reasons; manpower, resources, protection, etc, ad nauseam.
It was a huge security risk.
1. There is no such thing as a totally secured server. 2. Very few people knew that she was using her server for work related emails until after she was no longer Secretary of State. That fact added a certain level of security. Because of this little fact, no one had a reason to hack her server unless it was for giggles by some random hacker. 3. “Best Practices” and reality are often two different things.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 19:27:44 GMT
This is just...wrong. On a lot of levels.
The biggest issue was Clinton's server operating outside of the security fence provided by the State Department. The State Department IT security team's entire purpose for existence is to monitor for vulnerabilities and breach attempts. It also offers the protection of the NSA as well. A private server in a basement of a house has none of these things.
Have you ever heard of Einstein 3? A level of protection acting as an intrusion-detection system for government communications conceived by then President Bush and put into action by then President Obama in 2009? Also not available on a private server.
Clinton's private server was basically out on the open prairie with nothing but a shotgun to protect it whereas there was a fully armed army fort it should have been in for all the same practical reasons; manpower, resources, protection, etc, ad nauseam.
It was a huge security risk.
1. There is no such thing as a totally secured server. 2. Very few people knew that she was using her server for work related emails until after she was no longer Secretary of State. That fact added a certain level of security. Because of this little fact, no one had a reason to hack her server unless it was for giggles by some random hacker. 3. “Best Practices” and reality are often two different things. 1. True
2. She was still breached
3. This is true because people like Clinton decide to disregard Best Practices. She decided to go against Best Practices so she could be in control. She took a huge, unnecessary risk (exposing sensitive information to hacking) of which she was the main beneficiary.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jun 5, 2019 19:34:45 GMT
I hope that the current White House residents will hear what she has to say.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 15, 2024 18:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 19:38:39 GMT
1. There is no such thing as a totally secured server. 2. Very few people knew that she was using her server for work related emails until after she was no longer Secretary of State. That fact added a certain level of security. Because of this little fact, no one had a reason to hack her server unless it was for giggles by some random hacker. 3. “Best Practices” and reality are often two different things. 1. True
2. She was still breached - how many times has the State Department servers been breached? Do you think they would admit it if they were?
3. And...? She decided to go against Best Practices so she could be in control. She took a huge, unnecessary risk (exposing sensitive information to hacking) of which she was the main beneficiary. We have no clue how many government servers have been breached, Again that is a reality. And it’s probably just as well we don’t know.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 19:53:43 GMT
well, why are you laughing at the fact that they chose Clinton to speak, then? It says right in their press release WHY they chose her. She is a former Secretary of State, and someone who has been personally affected by a data breach. Why is that such a laughing-stock choice? It doesn't say she's speaking as a cybersecurity expert, for gosh sakes. Just that she's speaking. It's understandable that someone outside the tech community might not get it.
"She is a former Secretary of State" - yes.
"and someone who has been personally affected by a data breach" - which she caused.
The entire topic of the summit is cyber defense. A keynote speaker is "a person who delivers a speech that sets out the central theme of a conference." So, she is speaking specifically on cybersecurity because that's the theme of the summit and she's the keynote.
She is a hugely inappropriate choice because of her complete and total lack of knowledge and implementation of Best Practices.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 19:56:24 GMT
1. True
2. She was still breached - how many times has the State Department servers been breached? Do you think they would admit it if they were?
3. And...? She decided to go against Best Practices so she could be in control. She took a huge, unnecessary risk (exposing sensitive information to hacking) of which she was the main beneficiary. We have no clue how many government servers have been breached, Again that is a reality. And it’s probably just as well we don’t know. This is true. The one thing you continue to overlook is the fact that her private server was not under the jurisdiction of the State Department.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 5, 2019 20:12:38 GMT
well, why are you laughing at the fact that they chose Clinton to speak, then? It says right in their press release WHY they chose her. She is a former Secretary of State, and someone who has been personally affected by a data breach. Why is that such a laughing-stock choice? It doesn't say she's speaking as a cybersecurity expert, for gosh sakes. Just that she's speaking. It's understandable that someone outside the tech community might not get it.
"She is a former Secretary of State" - yes.
"and someone who has been personally affected by a data breach" - which she caused.
The entire topic of the summit is cyber defense. A keynote speaker is "a person who delivers a speech that sets out the central theme of a conference." So, she is speaking specifically on cybersecurity because that's the theme of the summit and she's the keynote.
She is a hugely inappropriate choice because of her complete and total lack of knowledge and implementation of Best Practices.
The piece quoted by crimsoncat05 above states she’s doing a Q&A session, and that she is NOT giving a scripted speech. After all of these years and with the many extremely dangerous issues going on with our current leader? I’m really not understanding the continuing obsession with Hillary and her private server. Oh wait, it’s probably because she is literally the only important person in Washington who ever did such a thing, right?
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 5, 2019 21:05:00 GMT
It's understandable that someone outside the tech community might not get it.
"She is a former Secretary of State" - yes.
"and someone who has been personally affected by a data breach" - which she caused.
The entire topic of the summit is cyber defense. A keynote speaker is "a person who delivers a speech that sets out the central theme of a conference." So, she is speaking specifically on cybersecurity because that's the theme of the summit and she's the keynote.
She is a hugely inappropriate choice because of her complete and total lack of knowledge and implementation of Best Practices.
The piece quoted by crimsoncat05 above states she’s doing a Q&A session, and that she is NOT giving a scripted speech. After all of these years and with the many extremely dangerous issues going on with our current leader? I’m really not understanding the continuing obsession with Hillary and her private serverOh wait, it’s probably because she is literally the only important person in Washington who ever did such a thing, right?
The Q&A will be all about cybersecurity. Whether or not it's a scripted speech is irrelevant. She's being brought in as a past SOS and "featured keynote", an expert on the topic because "Secretary Clinton has been a practicing attorney and law professor, an advocate of internet freedom, First Lady, and U.S. Senator from New York, in addition to serving as the 67th United States Secretary of State." [ Source: Business Wire]
Again, the reason it's brought up is because of the irony involved with FireEye's announcement. Nobody has been talking about her emails for months...until this announcement was made.
In IT circles, it is a widely criticized move on FireEye's part and may actually damage their brand.
|
|