It strikes me as beyond credibility that the vulnerabilities of Madam Secretary's server weren't realized at the moment it was installed. The question is why was she and her staff so willfully reckless?

negligence is required showing for conviction of the lesser charge under subsection (f).

Why would Hillary's server be any different?

Our media understands the internet about as well as they understand the economy.

Keep in mind this isn't the Pentagon or Google or some other massive server farm. This is a single server used only for email.

Every "server" is continuously under attack on all the service ports. Email, web, and all the others. Many of the attacks try one IP address after another.

I own several sites and work closely with my web providers; a decade ago, our servers at both providers were frequently hit by cyberattacks. The majority of IPs from which these attacks originated were in China, India, Russia, Ukraine, and Germany.

looking for servers. When they find one, they throw some well-known vulnerabilities at it to see if they can get in.

That being said, there actually are plenty of ways Team Clinton really screwed up their security.

Port scan and use mim proxies.

But, on a serious note, I believe you're right. Perhaps DU has some resident computer-security professionals who can weigh in.

Let's check out the servers of everyone in Congress who's involved in some way with national security, shall we? Let's start with those with an (R) after their names, as I suspect those are the ones most likely to be playing around on the dark web looking for child porn and recipes for meth.

Hillary's server is "different" because it had top secret information on it. Anyone's server could get hacked by the Chinese, but her server could give them something of strategic value. Why didn't Hillary take do something to protect such information until 2013?

To paraphrase your post, Hillary understands the internet about as well as she understands the economy.

There's no way to tell HOW vulnerable it was during that time without knowing how it was set up. I would like to think that any commercial company providing email servers would provide at least industry-standard security, but who knows until they tell us what was in place.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton has lots of servers.

tell you then they try to sell you their security package for $149

Simple enough for State Department, FBI and congressional investigators to determine by a review of her billing records and interviews of her employees and the employees of her network provider. Is that why one of her employees has already taken the 5th amendment?

Of course, given her history of mysteriously "disappearing" her time billing records of her employment with the Rose law firm (thus stringing out the Whitewater investigation for 2 years, keeping it alive long enough for Monica Lewinsky's involvement w/ Bill Clinton to be fed to Ken Starr, resulting in the impeachment) this whole matter could also string out for years. I say "mysteriously" because, for the benefit of those not familiar with the Whitewater investigation, when that stack of subpoenaed records finally reappeared, it was in the family quarters of the White House, on a table outside the room she used for an office.

I expect the Republicans are salivating for HRC to win the Dem. primary so they can throw all this at her throughout a general election campaign.

Because your reply, a link to Fox news, relative to my post, makes as much sense as that bunny wearing a pancake for a hat.

Take it any way you want. Your post is strangely littered with Clinton derangement tidbits.

Keep pushing the teabagger line, you are one hell of an asset................to them.

Just some friendly advice, you may want to edit.

the key statement is ....Attempts.... Maybe a small private email server was a better choice then a large governmental run server, less chance of attacks.

Something happened in 2013 to cause the to suddenly decide to put on some security.

So no, a small, private server without any security on it was not a better choice.

was targeted. I guess it's time to move on to the next line of defense. I can hear that bus warming up, the question is, who will end up under it.

Lots of replies to this thread are WAY oversimplifying the issue.

She wasn't logged in AOL sending emails.

Folks - don't speak of that which you know nothing about.

By Greg Gordon and Anita Kumar

McClatchy Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON

A Connecticut company, which backed up Hillary Clinton‘s emails at the request of a Colorado firm, apparently surprised her aides by storing the emails on a “cloud” storage system designed to optimize data recovery.

The firm, Datto Inc., said Wednesday that it turned over the contents of its storage to the FBI on Tuesday.

Datto NAS is smart, scalable storage that connects to the secure Datto cloud. It takes the NAS performance to the next level, adding snapshotting and syncing to the cloud.

no matter how much some folks want it to be true. You know, true Americans.

Given your posting of this article,which is based on a letter from a Republican Senator.

Nothing wrong with that, this is a free country.

However in the wake of Kevin McCarthy's revelation about the Benghazi Committee being a political operation to ruin HRC's chances in 2016, I tend to be cynical about letters from Republican Senator on this issue.

I wouldn't believe him even if his tongue came notarized.

Looking forward to your posts when that crowd turns their their lie machine towards Bernie after he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

Yes I'm a very biased poster and make no apology for that.

in bed with these liars. He's smart and he knows what their game is.

It is well known that the repubs are trying to wreck Hillary's numbers.
People here should be ashamed of carrying water for the repubs.

badly in the GE.

And potentially placing people at risk.

I worked for two different federal agencies, and both had data stolen from their servers. In both cases, it was employee records, including personal identifiers and financial data that would allow criminals to break into employees' bank accounts. I think we're scrutinizing Clinton's computer security practices solely because she's a presidential candidate. If we looked into every member of congress, I bet we would find data breaches all over the place, top secret messages lost, and so on.