RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[plague311]

I actually, honest to goodness burst out laughing at this!

TheL8Elvis has been posting evidence free speculation designed solely to muddy the water from three facts:

1. Hillary claims that her server was secure.
2. Hillary's cowboy server did not have a certificate until March
3. Hillary won't release any evidence that the server was secure.

See how easy that is? All the parts I've struck through are obvious BS.

Further, when I asked him for evidence of his "self signed certs," he made up some lame excuse about how he "wasn't making any claim," which is nonsense.

Let me dumb it down for you:

Did Hillary have a self signed cert? Yes or No.
If yes? Evidence please.

If you need anything else googled, or dumbed down for you, just inbox me. I can hold your hand if you'd like, that way I don't have to explain that Elvis has never posted any explanations whatsoever.

It is so painfully obvious that you have absolutely no idea how any of this works that it's laughable. I bet you did burst out laughing.

Can you please explain to me, in your words, what a self-signed cert is, and how security certificates work? I'm just curious how you think it works. I'll wait here patiently.

Trust me, I don't need you to hold my hand through any of this because you have no clue at all. Absolutely none.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

On Clinton's server security:
CNN said this:

And provided no evidence that I saw.

TheL8elvis believed they were referring to this from Venafi

Not necessarily. I just referenced that part of the discussion, because it was relevant.

"CNN found that Clinton's computer server wasn't using trusted Web certificates" is already so dumbed down as to be useless in a technical discussion, which is what is required if you want to make techinal claims about how the HBC mail server was being run.

TheL8elvis believes that Venafi could have only known that Clinton's email server was unsecured with their authentication. Clinton's email server could have been secured with a different certificate.

With their meaning network solutions, a CA, yes, this is accurate.

Kenneth Bocek a commenter on the Venafi blog said this:
Was he wrong? Was what he said inconsistent with what TheL8elvis said?

No, and no. But someone (trustnet) would have had to connect to the HBC mail server in Jan-Mar 2009 to collect the certificate information. For ***** sake, you can get all this information in your browser too ! Just click on the little lock for a https URL.

I'm confused about the terms and players. Perhaps somebody could clear things up a bit?

Venafi
NetSol
NetworkSolutions
TrustNet
Digital Certificate
self-signed certificate
Encrypted email

Google is your friend at this point. Although I see plague311 has graciously offered to help you, even after your sarcasm about his technical understanding, which seems pretty ironic, considering your post.

 

[DavidJames]

It is so painfully obvious that you have absolutely no idea how any of this works that it's laughable. I bet you did burst out laughing.

Can you please explain to me, in your words, what a self-signed cert is, and how security certificates work? I'm just curious how you think it works. I'll wait here patiently.

Trust me, I don't need you to hold my hand through any of this because you have no clue at all. Absolutely none.

You really are wasting your time.

A possible explanation for the gap was explained. That does not shift the burden of proof. The burden is still on them to show the server was not secure. No one here is claiming it was secure. Our response has been simply that there is a rational, logical and generally accepted alternative to secure the server. No one is saying that was used or not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1. Hillary claims that her server was secure.
2. Hillary's cowboy server did not have a certificate until March
3. Hillary won't release any evidence that the server was secure.

Therefore,

Did Hillary use encryption? Yes or No.

If yes? Evidence please.

You see how simple that is? And how I don't have to use bs phrases like "i have no reasons to believe" blah blah blah.

1. Hillary claims that her server was secure.
2. Hillary's cowboy server did not have a certificate from network solutions until March
3. Hillary won't release any evidence that the server was secure.

Therefore,

Did Hillary use encryption? Yes or No.

If No? Evidence please.

You see how simple that is?

 

[davefoc]

delete double post

 

[The Big Dog]

It is so painfully obvious that you have absolutely no idea how any of this works that it's laughable. I bet you did burst out laughing.

Can you please explain to me, in your words, what a self-signed cert is, and how security certificates work? I'm just curious how you think it works. I'll wait here patiently.

Trust me, I don't need you to hold my hand through any of this because you have no clue at all. Absolutely none.

Hee hee! There is no self signed cert!!!

Here is how a self signed cert works:

1. People claim they have a self signed cert.
2. they produce evidence of the self signed cert.

Claim: "It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one."

me: Evidence that they installed a self-signed cert?

Plague: It is so painfully obvious that you have absolutely no idea how any of this works that it's laughable.

Everyone else:

I gotta hand it to The8Elvis, he is doing a typically masterful job of snowing the Hillary fans!

 

[davefoc]

When Clinton excoriated the Bush administration for their use of a private email server was she wrong? Was this just partisan clap trap she was spewing and the use of private email servers by government officials is just fine?

Or was the use of a private email server by Clinton OK and the use of private email servers by the Bush administration part of their ""stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok"?

Part of the reason that Scott Gration was fired as ambassador to Kenya was described as his use of a non-government email account. Why was it a bad thing for him to use a non-government email account but an OK thing for Clinton?

What made Clinton exempt from the 2005 update to the Foreign Affairs manual?

to state that “sensitive but unclassified” information should not be transmitted through personal e-mail accounts.

What made Clinton exempt from the October 2, 2009 update to the "The U.S. Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records" which stated:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system”?

If Clinton intended to comply with the "US Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records" Why did she wait more than a year and a half to begin to do so and only after the State Department had specifically asked for the records?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When Clinton excoriated the Bush administration for their use of a private email server was she wrong? Was this just partisan clap trap she was spewing and the use of private email servers by government officials is just fine?

Or was the use of a private email server by Clinton OK and the use of private email servers by the Bush administration part of their ""stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok"?

Part of the reason that Scott Gration was fired as ambassador to Kenya was described as his use of a non-government email account. Why was it a bad thing for him to use a non-government email account but an OK thing for Clinton?

What made Clinton exempt from the 2005 update to the Foreign Affairs manual?


What made Clinton exempt from the October 2, 2009 update to the "The U.S. Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records" which stated: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system”?

If Clinton intended to comply with the "US Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records" Why did she wait more than a year and a half to begin to do so and only after the State Department had specifically asked for the records?

There are a lot of apples and oranges here.

Bush used the GOP email server to cover up lying us into a war. That's hardly the same thing.

And I already mentioned comparing an ambassador to the Secretary of State has issues.

If the 2005 law applies, why didn't it apply to Colin Powell?

I don't want to go over all these details again and again. It's my understanding the 2005 law didn't address private email accounts it addressed saving the emails and Clinton did that when she turned to over to the State Department.

If there was some blatant law violation, how is it Clinton went all that time without an @state.gov address and no one batted an eye?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Hee hee! There is no self signed cert!!!

Here is how a self signed cert works:

1. People claim they have a self signed cert.
2. they produce evidence of the self signed cert.

Claim: "It's not only possible, but plausible they simply installed a self-signed cert until they purchased the NetSol one."

me: Evidence that they installed a self-signed cert?

Plague: It is so painfully obvious that you have absolutely no idea how any of this works that it's laughable.

Everyone else:

I gotta hand it to The8Elvis, he is doing a typically masterful job of snowing the Hillary fans!

Yeah, but I can't fool crafty ol' 16.5 with silly things like facts and valid arguments

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Hillary claims that her server was secure.
2. Hillary's cowboy server did not have a certificate from network solutions until March
3. Hillary won't release any evidence that the server was secure.

Therefore,

Did Hillary use encryption? Yes or No.

If No? Evidence please.

You see how simple that is?

Well, it is a damn good thing that TheLElvis is not asking people to prove a negative!

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, but I can't fool crafty ol' 16.5 with silly things like facts and valid arguments

And one of these days, I have no doubt that you'll make one.

Speculating about a self-signed cert? hey, Plague bought it!

 

[The Big Dog]

If there was some blatant law violation, how is it Clinton went all that time without an @state.gov address and no one batted an eye?

Because no one outside of Hillary's tiny coterie of insiders knew she didn't have one.

 

[davefoc]

...

No, and no. But someone (trustnet) would have had to connect to the HBC mail server in Jan-Mar 2009 to collect the certificate information. For ***** sake, you can get all this information in your browser too ! Just click on the little lock for a https URL.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_50044560c3312f1024.png

...

1. Thanks for the info on how to obtain the digital certificate info
2. Is it your claim that Venafi didn't scan the Clinton server in the time between when she took office and the time when a digital certificate was obtained or are you saying you don't know if they did that or not or their claim that Clinton's server didn't have a digital certificate is based on information that they couldn't have had?
3. Is it your claim that when CNN says "But it only works if it's configured correctly. CNN found that Clinton's computer server wasn't using trusted Web certificate" they were completely mistaken or that there is just not enough information there to know what the specifics of their claim are?

 

[davefoc]

Because no one outside of Hillary's tiny coterie of insiders knew she didn't have one.

For the record, I think she had one, she just didn't use it.

 

[davefoc]

delete duplicate post.

 

[davefoc]

There are a lot of apples and oranges here.

Bush used the GOP email server to cover up lying us into a war. That's hardly the same thing.

Too bad Clinton wasn't more specific in her speech. Something like, secret email accounts are a really bad thing when the Bush administration uses them to cover up their malfeasance, but they are OK when I will use them in my administration because I am not going to do bad things.

And I already mentioned comparing an ambassador to the Secretary of State has issues.

So Clinton over seeing a department that puts up as one of the reasons for firing somebody the same thing that she is doing is not hypocritical in any way?

If the 2005 law applies, why didn't it apply to Colin Powell?

I have no reason to believe it didn't.

I don't want to go over all these details again and again. It's my understanding the 2005 law didn't address private email accounts it addressed saving the emails and Clinton did that when she turned to over to the State Department.

You read the word, personal, in the update to specifically exclude personal email accounts on private servers? ETA: Do you know if Clinton interpreted this update the way you did and this was the reason that she didn't think she needed to submit her emails for archiving?

If there was some blatant law violation, how is it Clinton went all that time without an @state.gov address and no one batted an eye?

Who in the Obama administration realized that Clinton was conducting all her official SoS email communications via her private server? It seems like it was a very small number of people, all of whom seem to have been within the Clinton sphere.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Too bad Clinton wasn't more specific in her speech. Something like, secret email accounts are a really bad thing when the Bush administration uses them to cover up their malfeasance, but they are OK when I will use them in my administration because I am not going to do bad things.

So Clinton over seeing a department that puts up as the reason for firing somebody the same thing that she is doing is not hypocritical in any way?
I have no reason to believe it didn't.
You read the word, personal, in the update to specifically exclude personal email accounts on private servers?Who in the Obama administration realized that Clinton was conducting all her official SoS email communications via her private server? It seems like it was a very small number of people, all of whom seem to have been within the Clinton sphere.

Small sphere? You mean like everyone at the top?

I don't see that Clinton's emails were secret. You still have no evidence anything was covered up.

If she broke the law, why hasn't she been charged? Are you claiming the right wing blogosphere and people in this forum know the law better than all of Clinton's lawyers and the DoJ?


This keeps going round and round.

Was she hiding something? No.
Doesn't matter, the private email account was illegal.
If that's so, why no charges? crickets
She mishandled classified material.
If that's so, why no charges? crickets
​

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1. Thanks for the info on how to obtain the digital certificate info

Your welcome.

2. Is it your claim that Venafi didn't scan the Clinton server in the time between when she took office and the time when a digital certificate was obtained or are you saying you don't know if they did that or not and their claim that Clinton's server didn't have a digital certificate is based on information that they couldn't have had?

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

They used their time machine:
TrustNet is able to go back in time and identify how digital certificates were used in the past, providing a new type of forensics capability to the IT security community.

May claim is I don't know if they did that or not - their claim that Clinton's server didn't have a digital certificate is based on ???

They need to provide evidence they knew mail.clintonemail.com existed prior to march 2009, and that they attempted to connect to it.

Otherwise, thier blog post doesn't have facts, and is simply marketing for their venafi Trustnet service.

3. Is it your claim that when CNN says "But it only works if it's configured correctly. CNN found that Clinton's computer server wasn't using trusted Web certificate" they were completely mistaken or that there is just not enough information there to know what the specifics of their claim are?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-home-server/
But it only works if it's configured correctly. CNN found that Clinton's computer server wasn't using trusted Web certificates -- something that's frowned upon by computer security experts. Running a personal mail server is generally harder to protect than, say, the State Department, which has a dedicated computer security team.

Since they provided no evidence, I am not sure what their claim is. When did CNN find "that Clinton's computer server wasn't using trusted Web certificates" ? And ... so what ? Did they find they used self-signed certificates ? Or did they weren't using 'Web certificates' at all ... which is kind of meaningless. They have dumbed it down too much - it's meaningless.

 

[The Big Dog]

And we are off!!....

Well, we laughed, we had fun, but now the next Tranche is on the street and we are off!

My favorite so far? A tie, between Huma forwarding HRC a story about "buyer's remorse" over Obama and one from Hillary asking to print a story about how Bloomberg thinks Obama is the most arrogant person he has ever met.

Hee hee!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh look, echoes of, "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

McCarthy admits the Benghazi Committee was out to get Clinton only I don't think he knew that what he was saying came out that way.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee," McCarthy said. "What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."