Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
logger said:
The left accuses Hillary of being all that, you need to aim a little lower and go for Warren, with that said, you need to change your registration as you aren't really a republican.
Click to expand...


"No True Republican"?

Is there a test?

Is it pass/fail, like the "One drop rule"? Or can you be like 67% Republican?

Who gets to write the test? Who gets to do the grading?
 
quadraginta said:
"No True Republican"?

Is there a test?

Is it pass/fail, like the "One drop rule"? Or can you be like 67% Republican?

Who gets to write the test? Who gets to do the grading?
Click to expand...

Here's some thoughts. A Republican believes:
1. Sabotaging peace talks is fine as long as the president is a Democrat
2. Shutting down the government is fine if you don't get your way.
3. Scientific theories are bogus if they lead to actions that might harm the fossil fuel industry.
4. Banking crises every now and then are just fine as long as the bank managers can make a lot of money.

I like your question about the "One drop rule". Can you be a Republican if you don't line up solidly behind every one of the above items? Maybe you could make up for a little quibbling over some of those as long as you're opposed to gay marriage? Maybe if you say three hail Ronald Reagans you could make up for an occasional independent thought and you can stave off excommunication?
 
While it is difficult to believe that the news about Clinton's cowboy server security could get worse, a new analysis shows that for the first three months there was virtually no security whatsoever on Clinton's homebrew job:

Venafi, a Salt Lake City computer security firm, has conducted an analysis of clintonemail.com and determined that “for the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate.” In other words: For three months, Clinton’s server lay vulnerable to snooping, hacking, and spoofing.

Guess getting basic security was not convenient.
 
16.5 said:
While it is difficult to believe that the news about Clinton's cowboy server security could get worse, a new analysis shows that for the first three months there was virtually no security whatsoever on Clinton's homebrew job:

Venafi, a Salt Lake City computer security firm, has conducted an analysis of clintonemail.com and determined that “for the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate.” In other words: For three months, Clinton’s server lay vulnerable to snooping, hacking, and spoofing.

Guess getting basic security was not convenient.
Click to expand...

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-venafi-trustnet-tells-us-about-the-clinton-email-server/

Starting in late March 2009, mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with a Network Solutions’ digital certificate and encryption for web-based applications like Outlook Web Access. This was 3 months after Secretary Clinton took office. The clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009 – 8 days before Secretary Clinton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

Let me break down the argument for any of those posters who are less 'technically inclined'

  • SSL secures communications sent across the internet
  • SSL requires a digital certificate
  • clintonemail.com domain was registered with Network Solutions in January 2009
  • mail.clintonemail.com was enabled with apurchased Network Solutions’ digital certificate March 2009,
Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

So what's the problem ?

Having a "digital certificate" and securing communications does not require purchasing a cert from NetSol. It's easy, and an accepted practice to create your own CA and certificates:
https://www.google.com/search?q=creating+a+ssl+certificate
It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one.
Or, equally as possible, didn't actually start using the server until after obtaining the netsol cert.

So unless www.venafi.com has a time machine;
They cannot know if the mail server was secured or not.
They cannot know what services (ie mail, web) were actually running on the machine

Hooray for FUD and misinformation. :rolleyes:
 
davefoc said:
<>
ETA: Has anybody been identified as the Eric Hoteham yet?
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-eric-hothem-115764.html

The mystery man linked to Hillary Clinton’s personal email account appears to be a Washington, D.C., stockbroker and former aide to the Clintons who played a walk-on role in controversies that dogged the former first family soon after they left the White House in 2001.

The initial Associated Press report Wednesday about Hillary Clinton’s use as secretary of state of a personal e-mail server installed in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., traced the creation of the system to a man named Eric Hoteham. There’s virtually no trace of an individual by that name in public records or other online databases.

However, a Clinton aide named Eric Hothem was linked to a flap in 2001 about the Clintons’ shipment of furniture and other items from the White House at the end of President Bill Clinton’s second term.

I suppose ti could be him. I don't know that it matters so much at this point.
 
16.5 said:
you did not in fact contradict either the fact that it was not encrypted nor that it did not have certificate.

Wow.
Click to expand...
Just had to weigh in on this.

Venafi CAN NOT say the site wasn't encrypted.
VenaFi CAN NOT say the site didn't have a certificate.

TheL8Elvis provided plausible and reasonable explanations. Ones that I can personally verify I've done and others who've worked for me have done as standard way of doing business when creating business (including email) web servers.

It's impossible for Venafi to know if the site had a cert or was encrypted. IMPOSSIBLE. They can guess based on the data they have available. But standard and common business practices include having both w/o purchasing a certificate.

Reasonable people will read this and say, more information is necessary to reach a conclusion.

Conspiracy Theorists and Hyper Partisans will use the lack of proof as proof.

Let me say this one more time. I've managed support teams who supported multiple customer (fortune 500) web sites that have had, at one time or another, self signed certs.
 
DavidJames said:
Just had to weigh in on this.

Venafi CAN NOT say the site wasn't encrypted.
VenaFi CAN NOT say the site didn't have a certificate.

.....

Conspiracy Theorists and Hyper Partisans will use the lack of proof as proof.
Click to expand...

They CAN NOT? Well they just did, and the technical press is reporting on it. Of course, if Hillary had "self signed certs" there should be some evidence of it, correct? Please post it. Thanks!

/by the way, the word of the day is "hyper-partisan" I guess. Funny how threads regarding front page news about Hillary Clinton are deemed hyper-partisan. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
you did not in fact contradict either the fact that it was not encrypted nor that it did not have certificate.

Wow.
Click to expand...

Wow ? I didn't contradict it because I don't have a time machine that puts me in the position to accurately make a claim one way or the other. :rolleyes:

16.5 said:
They CAN NOT? Well they just did, and the technical press is reporting on it.
Click to expand...

Obviously they can. If it wasn't clear earlier, let me clarify they can claim whatever they want, they don't have any proof or strong evidence of the server being used for 3 months sans encryption.

16.5 said:
Of course, if Hillary had "self signed certs" there should be some evidence of it, correct? Please post it. Thanks!
<snip>
Click to expand...
No, not correct.

There wouldn't be any proof except if you were to go back in time and connect to the server at that point in time and see if the server presented a cert. And I can't do that, as I explained above.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Wow ? I didn't contradict it because I don't have a time machine that puts me in the position to accurately make a claim one way or the other. :rolleyes:



Obviously they can. If it wasn't clear earlier, let me clarify they can claim whatever they want, they don't have any proof or strong evidence of the server being used for 3 months sans encryption.


No, not correct.

There wouldn't be any proof except if you were to go back in time and connect to the server at that point in time and see if the server presented a cert. And I can't do that, as I explained above.
Click to expand...

Huh, you were saying Hillary's cowboy server might have had encryption and a certificate, yet you have produced no evidence of it. It would seem that if Hillary had a certificate, one would have been made available.

May I have the evidence please?
 
16.5 said:
Huh, you were saying Hillary's cowboy server might have had encryption and a certificate, yet you have produced no evidence of it. It would seem that if Hillary had a certificate, one would have been made available.

May I have the evidence please?
Click to expand...

No, you've got it all wrong. Let me recap for you.

You cited a source claiming connections to the server were not encrypted:
Therefore, from January to end of March 2009 access to clintonemail.com did not use encryption.

I've demonstrated their argument is not sound.

Therefor, thier conclusion is in doubt.

I will need you to cite a source with proof that the connections during that time period were not secure.

It would also be nice if you could then demonstrate that there were any consequences from that condition I should care about.

Since I don't believe you can do either, Good Day Sir !
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I will need you to cite a source with proof that the connections during that time period were not secure.
Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

A few days ago people were asking me to prove that the documents that Hilary destroyed were private (I of course responded by pointing out that was not how the law of spoliation worked)

Now you are asking me to prove that something was NOT secure.

Hmm. Good day indeed.
 
The security issue is a distraction. Of course it would be ridiculous to claim, as some here have, that going outside the official email system somehow improves security. Nothing could be a bigger headache for a computer security professional than to keep track of rogue employees with rogue servers.

Regardless, the real issue is this (my emphasis added):

A top freedom-of-information expert isn’t buying Hillary Clinton’s explanation of why she set up her own email system to conduct official State Department business, calling it “laughable."

Daniel Metcalfe, who advised White House administrations on interpreting the Freedom of Information Act from 1981 to 2007, told The Canadian Press that the former secretary of state acted “contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the law.”

“There is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act,” he said, reviewing a transcript of Clinton’s remarks during her Tuesday news conference. Clinton told reporters she deleted approximately 30,000 personal emails from her private account that she also used as secretary of state.
Click to expand...

Also, who the hell deletes 30,000 personal emails? I save practically every goddamned email I've ever sent or received because it is like a diary for me. Ok, I can see deleting some of them, maybe even most of them (well, not really). But all of them? It's just not credible.

Honestly, I don't know how the partisans here can keep defending Hillary. You guys should just give it up and admit that "yes, she's a sleazeball, but, meh, she's still better than any Republican, and at this point we're committed to riding this old mare the whole race." I mean I've been in some threads where I felt like I had the clearly superior position, but nothing yet on this forum to compare with this one. Just give it up and fight a different battle. And, yes, that is sincere advice.
 
Perfect, direct from the CTists cookbook under "Evidence of Guilt"
When the perp does not do things the way I think they should have.
Click to expand...

e.g. "who the hell" continues reading to school children when the twin towers are under attack (said by CTists about Bush)
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
A few days ago people were asking me to prove that the documents that Hilary destroyed were private (I of course responded by pointing out that was not how the law of spoliation worked)

Now you are asking me to prove that something was NOT secure.

Hmm. Good day indeed.
Click to expand...

It's your claim, based on the article you linked, that the server was not secure. Do you not remember?

16.5 said:
While it is difficult to believe that the news about Clinton's cowboy server security could get worse, a new analysis shows that for the first three months there was virtually no security whatsoever on Clinton's homebrew job:

Guess getting basic security was not convenient.
Click to expand...

Since you can't prove it, you could simply withdraw the claim instead of pretending that you're being treated unfairly.
 
sunmaster14 said:
The security issue is a distraction. Of course it would be ridiculous to claim, as some here have, that going outside the official email system somehow improves security. Nothing could be a bigger headache for a computer security professional than to keep track of rogue employees with rogue servers.
Click to expand...

It is a distraction, especially when it's full of misinformation.

sunmaster14 said:
Regardless, the real issue is this (my emphasis added):

Also, who the hell deletes 30,000 personal emails? I save practically every goddamned email I've ever sent or received because it is like a diary for me. Ok, I can see deleting some of them, maybe even most of them (well, not really). But all of them? It's just not credible.
Click to expand...

So you're incredulous.

If I had to decide whether to delete my emails or be endlessly badgered to turn it all over to let unknown persons dig through it until they found something, I know which option I would choose.

sunmaster14 said:
Honestly, I don't know how the partisans here can keep defending Hillary. You guys should just give it up and admit that "yes, she's a sleazeball, but, meh, she's still better than any Republican, and at this point we're committed to riding this old mare the whole race." I mean I've been in some threads where I felt like I had the clearly superior position, but nothing yet on this forum to compare with this one. Just give it up and fight a different battle. And, yes, that is sincere advice.
Click to expand...

Sure, she's still better than any Republican I know about who may run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom