Can anyone produce anything directly from the FBI in regards to Brian's logs?

And he did, quickly and bigly!

That tells me the campaign is very worried about quashing this ASAP.

Good bit of smoke here, wouldn't you say?

Have some third rate press intern make the statement.

Basically no matter what they do you'll find some way to draw a negative inference from it while posturing as some sort of expert.

So sick of this on a Democratic board.

We have got to get rid of people who claim to be democrats and then violate the law.

Guess what the first thing you do after hacking a system is? Modify the log files to remove evidence of your hack.

The log files do not indicate it was hacked, or that it was not hacked.

Christ on a crutch, Hollywood hackers are not realistic depictions, y'know...

Every story talking about this review explicitly said they only reviewed the log files.

Fill us in on what the next steps would be.

for you to share your knowledge.

It's nearly impossible to prove a negative and this is a real-world case. So the logs don't show anything, but logrotate could be the cause of that (emerge logrotate to periodically delete logs). Which logs? Just sendmail? Did the hacker get in with a different server (as in client/server)? Did they delete the log entries, or did Hillary's dude delete the log entries before turning them over?

The statement that the logs don't show a hack provides no useful information.

"Really good hackers don't leave traces!"

And a technical ability widely used by everyone but script kiddies.

mirrors reality, bro.

Clearing logs is CSI level stuff? You are pulling my leg, kid.

as you are.

There are plenty of people here who are extremely knowledgeable on this subject.

And removing traces from obvious places like the log files is indeed done by anyone above script kiddie.

I don't think they had a firewall in place beyond the Windows firewall (and even then it sounds like they left a lot open). And based on everything I read, I doubt they had any intrusion detection in place. So it's probably as easy as you say to delete log files.

Deleting the log files makes it obvious someone was there.

Instead, you delete the entries in the log file that show you were there. You leave the rest of the spam in place.

I might have mispoke but by delete the logs, I meant delete the line or lines related to your endeavor. I guess I should have said delete the log entries.

as Emailgate is Sanders' Hail Mary shot at the nomination.

When "Guccifer" goes down in history as the next "Curveball", we'll just add it to the long (long long) list of Camp Sanders missteps.

You might find this article of interest...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/world/europe/for-guccifer-hacking-was-easy-prison-is-hard-.html?_r=0

As a Hillary supporter (evidenced by the rightward arrow), you have an emotional attachment to a specific outcome. Like Scalia judging Cheney.

More importantly deleting log entries is absolutely trivial. Even if the statement that nothing was found in the logs is true, there are so many ways to clear out stuff from logs as to make the statement meaningless. What logs? Are they the sendmail logs or do they cover other daemons? Like Apache, SSH, Telnet, etc.

And if it's Hillary's server and she is under investigation, she has a motive to delete the entries as well.

Lack of proof, especially in a limited search, does not prove lack of activity.


On edit: the added ;rofl; is the equivalent of Hillary's cackle after someone brings up something she doesn't like.

"The fundamental problem with rootkit detection is that if the operating system has been subverted, particularly by a kernel-level rootkit, it cannot be trusted to find unauthorized modifications to itself or its components."

It doesn't matter if her private, unsecure email server was hacked. Any hacking (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the investigation into her private server.

I get that Guccifer is in the news. However, what he did or didn't do--seems like nothing more than a salacious sidebar-story.

The FBI is investigating her use of the private email server, as it relates to the laws governing the proper handling of classified materials.

Taking classified materials into a Starbucks and leaving them unattended on a table for ten hours--would be illegal. And prosecutable. It wouldn't matter if no one sat down at that table and read the documents, or if six people sat down and read the documents. From a legal perspective, the question is--the did person mishandle classified information?

...could make it very difficult for the DOJ not to go along with any recommendation to indict.

Despite, once again, highlighting the consequences of Hillary's poor "judgment".

Guccifer is important in providing probable cause for the investigation of Blumenthal and through him of Clinton and her staff.

The rest may or may not be important.

In other words just because the FBI found nothing on an unprotected server doesn't mean it wasn't hacked.

And the highlighted sentence is just plain weird: "Clinton's email records did not indicate traces of hacking"

This isn't at all about email.

In fact, during that three month window during which Clinton’s email server apparently lacked encryption, she had traveled abroad. According to a public log provided by the State Department’s office of the historian, Clinton had visited countries and places such as Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, China, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey and Mexico.

http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-email-unsecure/

WASHINGTON — A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails as secretary of state, which have been made public as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show that she received spam emails intended to try to lure her into clicking a malicious link. Those emails, known as “spear phishing” attempts, were traced to Russia, but it was not clear from the emails alone whether anyone clicked on those links or whether the security was compromised.

Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred. Security logs keep track of, among other things, who accessed the network and when. They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers.