If you want to design an email system that cannot . . .

be hacked, you have to hire the smartest, most experienced, MIT computer techies and junkies in the world. And when they are done, you have to kill them.

Questions?

 

Is this your defense for Hillary? That if it can't be perfect, you need not adopt any security measures at all?

 

Every computer system can potentially be hacked, but the best system in the world with encryption is exponentially more difficult and traceable to hack than is a simpleton system. If you happen to be dealing with highly sensitive information, you would be well advised to use an encrypted system if you really are concerned about that information being hacked. To not do so shows a reckless disregard for that information you are entrusted with protecting. If you don't care if it is hacked, you can go ahead and use any system that you like. In the same vein, every automobile has the potential of getting into an accident, but one with good brakes is much less likely to get into an accident than one with faulty brakes. To drive a car with faulty brakes shows a reckless disregard for safety.

Questions ?

 

It's not a question of 'perfect', I believe Hillary knew her State Department system was an open book and there weren't any security measures to begin with. The U.S. Postal Service would have been more secure. And it wouldn't surprise me to learn she knew that because she had hacks into Bush's email.

 

Can it still be hacked?

I already know the answer to this.

 

Uh no? What are you talking about? Here's what makes-up email.

A Server (hardware)
OS for the hardware
Operating System on top of that (usually a Virtual Machine with an OS such as Windows Server, or Red Hat or whatever).
The server you want, a mail server, a webserver, etc. Microsoft Exchange, for instance.
And networking.

That's pretty much it.

Where in there do you think the "best system" in the world exists?

They are all the same systems, a few different manufacturers, a few different OS's, it's not about the systems it's about the architecture and its implementation.

Is it more difficult to trace? Network Address Translation, proxy servers, VPNs.

Is it encrypted? Is your VPN tunnel encrypted? Will someone physically tap into your hardlines/wireless communication?

What is "Any System" that you'd like? You mean like Microsoft Exchange? Because that's regarded as very strong and it's used by like 90% of everyone.

 

Then as the Secretary of State (i.e. the head of the State Department), she should have had that rectified. Also, please show evidence that she hardened her personal server to a level higher than the State Department's, if that is true. You and I know that she really had her own separate server so she could conceal stuff from FOIA access as long as possible. Every other explanation is a copout. My problem is that she was loose with classified information, and, even if what she did was accidental, had she been a peon, she would have lost her security clearance, and been facing federal charges. We all know that if Hillary weren't a presidential candidate about to get the nomination of her party, she would have been charged.

 

The most secure systems are those that are encrypted. Are you trying to dispute that notion ? What exactly is your point ?

For obvious reasons, you are not going to find a lot of information about the specifics of the security systems in place in our governments secure network designed to hold top secret information. It is a pretty safe bet that the country that outspends the entire world 10 or 20 times over in terms of military expenditures is going to have a state of the art architecture in their encrypted national security system.

 

Actually that's not true. "Unhackable" computers even connected online are a piece of cake. Vulnerability in transmission is more difficult.

The DNC computers were not hacked. The emails were leaked to Wikileaks by DNC data entry staffer and Jewish Sander's supporter Seth Rich. He murdered as a result.

 

Most people don't know that years ago it was made illegal in the USA, UK and most other countries for companies to sell encryption software that did not have a back-door secret key for the government to be to read the files, just like Microsoft and Apple OS have a backdoor to every computer using their operating system into anyone's computer when connected online.

Encryption software predating backdoor keys despite being old are essentially impossible to get thru, particularly with clock-outs on attempts. If login can only be attempted every 10 seconds, and then locks out for an hour if wrong to only allow another 3 more etc, you're never, ever getting in. The best ones also have a a multiple overwrites scramble and delete feature if too many wrong guesses.

 

Microsoft Exchange only totals about 1.37% of email servers visible on the internet. Various linux servers (sendmail, postfix, exim, etc) account for almost all email traffic. Linux is far and away the most common, and most secure, publicly available server platform. In many corporate cases, however, Linux boxes are exposed to the internet and act as an email gateway to an exchange server on the inside network.



source

 

Yeah. How do you not get banned for saying you have to kill people, yet when I say our second Amendment will protect us I get told that its a direct threat to the public?

 

interesting conspiracy theory.

got any evidence?

have Rich's parents contacted the FBI?

 

What law is that specifically?

 

Law, regulation, DOH requirement - can't remember.

 

i dont believe this for a second.

no doubt the "evidence" is from Prisonplanet, Infowars, or Rense

 

Well maybe you should check what specific law because according to suppliers and the government no back door exists. That's why India can't get into Blackberries and the US can't get into iPhones.

 

The entire claim of being hacked by Russians is only based upon perceived ability of Russia to do so and claiming a motive of Putin supporting Russia. However, by that same "evidence" standard, it was Seth Rich who leaked the emails.

The FBI would say this is a matter for the DC police.

 

100% wrong.

there is direct evidence of hacking by Russian hackers into the Clinton and DNC servers. its not merely speculation.

 

Its impossible, and against the laws of computer science.

 

So instead of fixing it, SHE WAS THE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING SECRETARY OF STATE, she instead uses an even less secure server? I seriously hope you are trolling because if you are just regurgitating some email chain from the DNC or worse you thought of this awful defense yourself then you really have no standing on this forum at all anymore. You have zero credibility.

 

or maybe you know not set up a seperate system to avoid FOIA.

 

That's the issue. She's probably quite aware that there is no rectifying the issue for anything other than very short term. No sense hardening anything with that many people involved. We both know that.

 

Ah, er, I prefaced this entire discussion as a "theory" for why Hillary went off the State Dept. res. It's already been shown that none of the emails Hillary transmitted were marked Top Security at the time they were transmitted, so not only can you not read, you are merely regurgitating RNC daisy letters. Grow up.

Btw, her "less secure server" automatically becomes more secure if nobody knows she has it. Do you understand how that works?

 

And even then it would still be able to be hacked.