She couldn't even smooth this over? She wanted this.

There seems to be more than one liar involved.

who couldn't even keep a damn firewall up. Or perhaps that was by intent. Firewall breaches are opened both ways.

Take the network offline in the wee hours of the morning so as to have minimal impact on the campaigns, apply patch/upgrade/"whatever they wanna' call it", run integrity tests, and then go back online.

Done.

What network admin does this kind of stuff on a workday-weekday morn compromising all three campaigns simultaneously?

.


What kind of Mickey Mouse IT group performs system changes, when they did?

What kind of Mickey Mouse IT group doesn't segregate their systems properly?

What kind of Mickey Mouse IT group doesn't pass tokens to authenticate each hop?


===


This does not add up as a firm that can be trusted to maintain data--treating security as an afterthought!

Firewalls? Firewalls? That is the lamest bullshit excuse for allowing data to be accessed.

NO REAL DATA CENTER OR IT FIRM SECURES THEIR DATA BY FIREWALL ONLY!

NONE!


===


Can you imagine if your banking data was exposed, and you were seeing someone else's data?

You called the bank, and they said, "Oh, it was only for a few minutes. It was a firewall change going in."

Would you trust that firm after that?


===


There are two people to blame for this:


1) The IT Firm, whose contract should be terminated.

2) The people at the DNC who signed off on this installation, they approved every piece of its construct!



.

Well said.

.


Who sets up a userid that allows access to other client's data?

Imagine that you have a new userid created, the external security management team restricts that to only access certain servers, certain applications, certain data, and certain database plans or packages. Here, the Sanders guy was able to create new userids, apparently on the fly, that indicates that either group level security is in place, or virtually NO security. But, here's where it gets worse, they supposedly say a firewall change did this, that means they are only using firewall authentication to have access to their back-end systems. This is Mickey Mouse 101 here. Firewall rules are for external access blocking and blocking from internal servers, to fence in machines. There needs to be session state tokens that have application data in the payloads that is verified, there needs to be authentication down to the end-point application and at the database level.


Then, an SSL personal certificate would be granted on an individual user basis, not at a generic group level. Group level security is a flawed method from the 1990s. This is indicative of serious lapses in security protocol and exposes that data to tech savvy people.


.

Thank you for posting.

Screen shots the Data Director and 3 of his staffers took of their own search activities? Looks like the DD did exactly what Whit Hats are supposed to do. After repeatedly reporting failure of the firewall to the vendor , he documented an assessment of vulnerability to a data breach. This was not an effort to steal HRC data. No data was stolen.

In other words, stolen.

There may have been varying motives by those involved.

but the corporate m$m is not going to report the truth about this, cuz

Guerrilla Democrats
14h14 hours ago
Guerrilla Democrats ?@GuerrillaDems
Corporate Liberals Are Scared, Their Wall Street Friends Are Going To Jail If #Bernie Wins.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuerrillaDems/status/678002925222891520/photo/1

Their role is simply to contradict anything Sanders-related, regardless of its connection to reality.

It is a clear indication to the nation he doesn't belong in negotiations of delicate and complex matters. You know, the job he is asking for.

Howard Dean and Ed Rendell (both former DNC Chairmen) have said this should never have reached this point. It is damaging to every one. What is the common link between the vendor and the Campaigns? DWS. She owns it.
I now see she has begun resolution, just a little late.

about. I think Sanders gave us an example of what he would look like as our President. I think it was a major fail, and I do not think we deserve another president with the inability to problem solve, but resorts to shifting blame and threatening.

But that's OK. As far as examples, I believe Hillary has had bigger fails than this and survived quite well. Pretty much the only people that would make this an issue against Bernie look desperate, but that's just my view. You are welcome to obsess over this idea even though the real problem is bigger than the Presidential campaign. DWS is responsible for the operation of the whole Party, more than the Presidency is at stake.

She needs to go before she hurts the party in an irreversible way.

Who in the hell kneecaps a campaign by taking away their voter database that stops all campaigning--a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses?

Was it the entire campaign that looked at the Clinton data?

Why did she think she could stop the entire Sanders campaign in its tracks?!

The nerve and the hubris of these horrible people is unbelievable.

Do they not realize that we are at least half of the Democratic party??? Are they trying to destroy it?

They gave the DNC everything they asked for, yet the DNC still refused to allow access to the database.

...and they complied well BEFORE the 10 days that are mandated in the contract, before the DNC is allowed to cut off access to any data.

DWS / DNC did not comply with the terms of their own contract. Who the hell does that, especially after going public and making it into a big deal all around?

They caused this. Period. The Sanders campaign should own this fuck up because that's what it is. Their fuck up.

It's what lawyers do. Of course they could put that together immediately.

in an afternoon. It's full of 11 pages of quite precise details, all of which had to be pulled together and vetted, then written up and carefully proofed.

I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows that fact.

ready to go, they would have put the attorneys to work as soon as they knew they might need the document? Rather than wait till the last minute when something could go wrong?

If you have an emergency you deal with it. But if you have time to make sure you do it right, you take it.

Get real.

several occasions. I think it likely he would have let his boss know about that as well. It may well be that they anticipated problems would arise and were prepared for that. They did document their actions during the intrusion (the screenshots).

That doesn't necessarily mean something nefarious was planned - in fact there was a lack of apparent subtrafuge in the entry itself. That seems to back up the Data Director's white hat intrusion story. We will see.

she was keeping them out of the database, Weaver's most likely reaction was to threaten a lawsuit. He was a little ball of fury at the presser, remember? And after the threat he most likely told his attorneys to get working -- because if she didn't cave they were filing on Friday.

She had the heads up of the threat, and so she decided to put out her side of the story first.

speculatation on your part. You may be right, but I wouldn't proceed on the basis of such a deduction to any further conclusions.

My main criticism of DWS is that unlike Dean in 2008 when the HRC staff did something similar with the VAN, she failed to reconcile both sides and keep it inside. She's too partisan to be effective as DNC Chair. This whole thing has hurt the D brand. I hope you understand my conclusion.

This episode has me dismayed.

included specific searches followed by downloading and saving.

I don't really care what happens to DWS. I'm not a particular fan.

But I don't like people minimizing what Uretsky did. It wasn't acceptable.
Which was why he got canned.

DWS is toxic and plays into the worst stereotypes about Hillary. The whole data kerfuffle just gives repukes the opportunity to giggle about the email no-story and how dems can't keep their own house together.

The party should just flush DWS and move on.

From the complaint at https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bernie2016vDNCComplaint.pdf

"... Plaintiff is sustaining irrrepable injury and financial losses..."

to start a legal document ?

And don't you think Sanders's people were threatening the lawsuit as soon as they found out what action the DNC was taking?

I covered court for 13 years as a reporter. I've seen attorney plug in information the length of this injunctive relief in an afternoon.

The law firm you worked for must have not had technology.

I have written 2 complaints in a few hours and I am not a lawyer.

I take it you've never met a lawyer, as they can pull 11 pages out of thin air, in proper legalese, in no time flat.

DWS made a story out of this and will reap the blowback.

or some other document full of boilerplate.

It's full of specific details related to this specific situation and there would have been absolutely no reason for Bernie's campaign to wait till the last minute -- till Friday afternoon -- to put it together. Why would they ever do that? That would be nuts.

They have lawyers on retainer. So they didn't have to take a chance on a slap-dash effort on a Friday afternoon. They could just tell their lawyers to work on the document in case it was needed, and use the threat to try to prod the DNC.

a lawsuit, you would have fixed the problem.

That was indeed something any competent lawyer could have prepared in a couple of hours. Hell, a good paralegal could have drafted that complaint in short order.

Any lawyer that couldn't write that suit up up in a couple of hours should probably seek a new career path.

DWS / DNC got their asses handed to them, was the ultimate outcome.

But for everyone else, it was good that Debbie framed the issue rather than letting the lawsuit be the first announcement to the world.

...and that is exactly why many of us despise her and her brand of politics: it's all about "framing the issue" rather than about what is true.

I am willing to accept what the data director said about his access to Clinton's data; however, I certainly understand that Clinton supporters are not. If the shoe were on the other foot, no doubt the reactions would be similar on both sides.

However, this is the sort of issue that could have easily been resolved behind the scenes. Instead, DWS chose to go public. You have zero evidence to back up your claim that the Sanders campaign had already decided to file a lawsuit, yet you persist in stating it as a fact.

So I will follow suit. DWS saw an opening to deal a blow to the Sanders campaign, and she took it. Going public was a way to get the accusation out there and to gloss over any claims by the Sanders campaign that they had notified the DNC about the data breach problems several weeks ago.

She may yet regret opening up this particular can of whoop-ass.

The WA Post, MSNBC, and ABC all reported having seen the database logs showing that staffers downloaded and saved DNC data. So Weaver was lying.

He also lied initially when he tried to blame everything on a "low level staffer" instead of his top computer guy,.

I saw Weaver at the conference and I listened to him. He said the database was critical to the campaign, and it was. So I'm certain he immediately threatened a lawsuit when he learned they were closing it off to the campaign. Why would he NOT have? It's common to threaten a lawsuit to get people to back down And based on his demeanor at the presser, I'm sure that would have been his first response.

...was that DWS chose to make this into a public incident. She thought she could open a can of whoop-ass on the Sanders campaign. It isn't quite going as she expected it to go. And she and the DNC did back down before facing a judge -- which makes sense, since they were in clear breach of their contract with the Sanders campaign.

You can't keep a Federal lawsuit quiet.

...was that DWS / DNC were in BREACH OF CONTRACT. Had she not gone that heavy-handed route, there would have been no lawsuit.

The ONLY reason this is in the public eye is Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

They exclude nearly everyone under 26.

this one, putting him 28 points behind.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/full-results-poll-democrats-2016/index.html

why we're letting our party be run by someone who palled up with Sheldon Adelson to lobby for the arrests of medical marijuana patients, is beyond me.

Plenty of time to get a good lawsuit written if you're a competent organization like the Bernie campaign.

Attorney use templates to write lawsuits. Plugging in the information probably took them less than a day.

And, Wasserman went public with this allegation BEFORE she cut the Sanders campaign off.

Sorry - you're simply wrong.

right now I'd have to speculate it was someone that didn't want to be exposed to possible legal action or to go along and expose themselves to a legal action. A whistleblower!!!!

You can't blame the Clinton Campaign because they themselves were the victim, it was their proprietary data.