(December 19, 2015 at 11:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Bernie apologized on national TV for what his staffers did.
Good. Now hopefully the DNC will apologize for causing this mess. As Sanders also mentioned in the debate, this wasn't the first time their campaign noticed information leaking from the Clinton campaign database, and when they reported the earlier breaches, it was dealt with internally. For whatever reason (and I think it's highly likely that the DNC have an ulterior motive to try and destabilize the Sanders campaign), on this occasion the DNC decided to make it a public issue, and shut down the Sanders' campaign's access to data, which is a breach of contract (hence the reason Sanders is suing).
Quote:And Divi Tiberio, that seems to be an argument for professionals, not the laity.
Quote:In the computer security context, a hacker is someone who seeks and exploits weaknesses in a computer system or computer network. Hackers may be motivated by a multitude of reasons, such as profit, protest, challenge, enjoyment,[1] or to evaluate those weaknesses to assist in removing them. The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground and is now a known community.[2] While other uses of the word hacker exist that are related to computer security, such as referring to someone with an advanced understanding of computers and computer networks,[3] they are rarely used in mainstream context.[4] They are subject to the longstanding hacker definition controversy about the term's true meaning. In this controversy, the term hacker is reclaimed by computer programmers who argue that someone who breaks into computers, whether computer criminal (black hats) or computer security expert (white hats),[5] is more appropriately called a cracker instead.[6] Some white hat hackers[who?] claim that they also deserve the title hacker, and that only black hats should be called "crackers".
I, for one, do not give a shit about the technicalities.
Right, and I'm a security professional. I'm telling you categorically that this wasn't hacking. I don't pretend to know how the DNC database works, but from the articles I've read, it appears that it's a centralized database that all campaigns have access to, however the campaigns are restricted from accessing each others data. For example, the DNC might have data in the database that every campaign is allowed access to, but the Clinton campaign might upload data of their own, and no other campaign should be able to see it. When the Sanders campaign performed queries on the database via normal search inputs, rather than just their own data, they also got some of Clinton's. As Sanders said, this has happened before and when it did, the Sanders campaign staff stopped and alerted the DNC. This time, one staffer opened the data and looked at it.
My point is, the staff didn't hack anything, they didn't even exploit anything, they just used the system as it's intended to be used, but the results they got back from the database included Clinton's information, which it shouldn't have.
To put it in a forum context, on this forum we have a hidden subforum which the staff use to communicate. Threads and posts in that forum are hidden from regular members. If a software bug occurred when you did a search, and within the results were threads / posts from the hidden forum, and you clicked on one of the threads, you've just accessed data which you shouldn't ordinarily have access to. You didn't "hack" anything though, searching a forum and clicking on search results is normal behavior.
