Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Security The Internet Communications Databases Government Network Privacy Apple Politics

4Chan Hackers Claim To Have Remotely Wiped John Podesta's iPhone and iPad (gizmodo.com) 269

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Gizmodo: For the past several days, WikiLeaks has been publishing thousands of emails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta -- and the leaks are starting to cause some serious damage. Gizmodo reports: "Many of the leaked emails contained contact info, cell phone numbers, and account data, none of which was redacted by Wikileaks before being posted. With this information accessible to anyone with the time and energy to read through it all, users on 4chan's /pol/ (politically incorrect) board were able to gain access to Podesta's Twitter account, tweeting a message in support of Trump. Imageboard posters also stumbled on an email containing Podesta's Apple ID -- and appear to have exploited it. 'iPad/iPhone info and data wiped out,' a post on Endchan claimed, show screenshots of what seems to be the hacker gaining access to Find My iPhone using Podesta's credentials. If Podesta's Apple ID was compromised, it stands to reason that his iCloud account was similarly vulnerable. And sure enough, Redditor's on r/The_Donald claim Podesta's iCloud data was downloaded. A hacker known as CyberZeist also appears to have uncovered the passwords to dozens of senators' email addresses, as well as social security numbers and credit card info for many Democrats including Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and acting Chair of the DNC Donna Brazile. The information was posted to pastebin.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

4Chan Hackers Claim To Have Remotely Wiped John Podesta's iPhone and iPad

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    https://twitter.com/infosec_jackass/status/786357961794785280

  • by 14erCleaner ( 745600 ) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Thursday October 13, 2016 @05:33PM (#53072313) Homepage Journal
    Apparently Podesta's password is "password". That's why "the Russians" have all his email, you know.
  • by FireballX301 ( 766274 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @05:36PM (#53072341) Journal
    I'm surprised John Podesta hasn't been given a security audit by the campaign. Audit as in, replaced phone/email/computers with securely vetted stuff + had a security contractor audit and harden his accounts with better passwords/2factor/cleaning out cross referenced credentials.
    • by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @05:41PM (#53072387) Homepage

      Doubly so when iCloud password he was using was sent to him via email by one of his staffers... an email that was part of the Wikileaks dump: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... [wikileaks.org]

      Audit or not, if you have reason to believe someone has access to your stuff, best to change everything you can that might be referenced in that stuff (from a more secure device).

    • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:29PM (#53072721) Homepage

      I'm surprised John Podesta hasn't been given a security audit by the campaign. Audit as in, replaced phone/email/computers with securely vetted stuff + had a security contractor audit and harden his accounts with better passwords/2factor/cleaning out cross referenced credentials.

      These are people who can't be bothered with security when they're the Secretary of State for the USA - how much less do you think they'd care about the data for a political campaign?

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        I once worked at a defense contractor. "Company confidential" data was given more protection than official US govt. "Secret" data. So it wouldn't surprise me if the political campaign had better protection. If it doesn't, it means that they really just don't know what they're doing, and the defense of incompetence should be believed.

    • by TimMD909 ( 260285 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:35PM (#53072751) Homepage
      Standards and practices, especially with email, were never really the Clinton way of doing things. This fans the flames on the email fiasco.
  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @05:41PM (#53072389) Journal

    The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

    In any case, the failure to redact phone numbers and other personal information suggests that Wikileaks cannot really be regarded as a reasonable way to leak data.

    Finally, I suspect that the one-sided nature of the leaks is upsetting many people who would otherwise support Wikileaks.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, 2016 @05:47PM (#53072429)

      That does not excuse the bullshit that is in the Wikileaks emails. Many of us on the left where not planning on to vote for that warmonger in the first place but at leaks at the convention quite literally nuked any chance of support by many of us progressives. They made their bed, they can lay in it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        If you read the e-mails as proof it was rigged, then you read what you wanted to read and would have believed anyway. Fivethirtyeight demonstrated that the convention was not rigged [fivethirtyeight.com].

        You already knew that the DNC liked team-player, loyal soldier Hillary rather than independent, more-interested-in-protesting-than-governing Sanders. The e-mails conclusively proved only that. They did not show that sanders was cheated.
        • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @07:27PM (#53072979) Journal

          If you read the e-mails as proof it was rigged, then you read what you wanted to read and would have believed anyway

          Perhaps not the convention. In California, the night before the primary election, there was an announcement on the news that Clinton had won. Guess what, turnout of Democratic electors was lower than expected. And the claim that Clinton had already won: false. Was that false claim an accident? I don't think so.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DaHat ( 247651 )

      No doubt Trump supporters are chuckling at your realization of this... the same thing Republicans have known for ages about most of the media.

      Or are we to believe it was pure coincidence that an 11 year old Trump tape came out just 48 hours before the debate, and that just days later, several publications had interviews with some of the victims?

      It will be interesting to see/hear what other bombshells both sides have been sitting on for all of this time.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:41PM (#53072783)

        We know it was held. The tape was from an NBC show. How did NBC get scooped if it was from their own show?

        Answer: they held the tape back and were planning on releasing it closer to the election. When the Wikileaks leak happened, "someone" leaked the tape to the Washington Post, which published immediately.

        So, yes, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "p***y" tape was released to cover up the Wikileaks leaks.

        I still find it weird how a guy saying "pussy" in private is worse than a literal rapist who raped multiple women, but I'm not a Democrat, so what do I know about faux outrage.

        • by nrjyzerbuny ( 141033 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:59PM (#53072895)

          The word 'pussy' isn't the problem. The problem is the word 'grab'.

    • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @05:55PM (#53072511)

      The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests

      That one candidate is doing enough leaking from his own mouth for it not to matter?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe this will encourage the media to start doing journalism again and we won't need WikiLeaks anymore.
      • Yeah, like they will ever be anything other than an establishment megaphone. That's the only reason they even exist.

        speaking of one-sided....

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anarkhos ( 209172 )

      Or maybe it's one-sided because one of the candidates is a crook

    • by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:14PM (#53072637) Journal

      The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

      Welcome to the real world. Wikileaks has ALWAYS had an agenda, but that was fine for some people when Assange was targeting those they disagreed with. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's suddenly a problem.

      In any case, the failure to redact phone numbers and other personal information suggests that Wikileaks cannot really be regarded as a reasonable way to leak data.

      You're kidding, right? If you're leaking data, you should redact it before you give it to someone else to do with whatever they please, because who is to say that the non-redacted data won't accidentally leak, much less purposefully?

      Finally, I suspect that the one-sided nature of the leaks is upsetting many people who would otherwise support Wikileaks.

      See point one above. There are plenty on the right these days cheering them on, because many of those people are hypocrites, too.

    • Did you feel that way when Wikileaks was putting out U.S. military secrets, but not the military secrets of Al Qaeda, or China?

    • by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:46PM (#53072817)

      Even if Wikileaks had a bias, what's wrong with leaking the info of careerist establishment politicians?

      Whatever Hillary is in relation to Trump, in absolute terms she's still a bought and paid for member of the establishment.

      • Whatever Hillary is in relation to Trump, in absolute terms she's still a bought and paid for member of the establishment.

        And so is Trump.

        • by swb ( 14022 )

          Yeah, but after November he's just another tax-dodging, whoring member of the tasteless new money class.

          Clinton will be President, which makes exposing her dirty laundry more important.

    • The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

      I think that was the case from the beginning.
      Are you coming to this realization just now?

    • I can't find any solid evidence of them EVER doing that?

      A quick search shows something from the pentagon in 2010 which also has myth debunking stuff saying that never happened.

    • Not everyone has the same number or size of skeletons in the closet. It is just possible that Trump is not a multiple felon, or alternatively that he was competent at getting rid of the evidence. There is no reason that Hillary or Podesta could not of deleted all of this incriminating evidence from their own devices long before anyone hacked them.

    • by jafiwam ( 310805 )

      The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

      In any case, the failure to redact phone numbers and other personal information suggests that Wikileaks cannot really be regarded as a reasonable way to leak data.

      Finally, I suspect that the one-sided nature of the leaks is upsetting many people who would otherwise support Wikileaks.

      Two possible reasons for this:

      Insiders are doing the leaking
      RNC break-ins happened and aren't interesting, exposing corruption isn't fun if there isn't any

      Also note; conservative thought did not do SJW twat-juice battle against Anon and 4chan trying to enforce political correctness. i.e. they aren't angry at the RNC yet.

      You are right, this is vindictive. Deliciously so.

    • The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

      Like Assange?

      The US has been after him for years, all under Obama's administration.

      Suppose Assange has appealed to Obama for leniency. Obviously, leniency hasn't happened.

      Now suppose Assange approaches Hillary. And for whatever reason, she doesn't want to deal. Maybe she doesn't want to be tarnished by a relationship with Assange/Wikileaks coming out. Maybe Assange tried to blackmail her or force a deal, threatening to leak information if Hillary doesn't call off the hounds when she gets in.

      What

    • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Friday October 14, 2016 @02:49AM (#53074457) Journal

      The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

      The murder of Seth Rich, along with the rumor that he was Wikileak's source for the DNC leaks, puts Assange in a tough position. Whether Seth WAS his source or not, public perception that Wikileaks sources may be killed and their leaked information thus suppressed could make his sources dry up.

      To counter this he has to create the perception that, if you try to plug the leak by plugging the source, it will result in the leaks being more extreme and damaging, rather than less.

      One way to do that is to publish more than would normally be published, and redact it less.

      Perhaps that is what is going on: As with rule 804, where hearsay from a deceased person becomes admissible, insuring that leaks from (or perceived to be from) a murder victim are extreme might help make murder of leakers less likely.

  • by Hartree ( 191324 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @05:43PM (#53072407)

    Those b-tard trolls on 4chan have always been tools of Putin and the Russian government, and they are trying to tilt the election!

    Let's investigate the history of finance links between Moot and the Russians. Has he ever attended FSB (He's not old enough for KGB) training? ;) (for the blindly humor impaired)

  • ...and so starts WW III

    Or maybe it's just a storm in a teacup. Can't say quite yet.

  • It's funny all the politicians railing against encryption so they can foil the next terrorist plot.
    (or spy on their not-so-loyal significant other(s)).
    But when THEY get hacked they'll need some strong encryption to prevent it for themselves.
    Because they are big people-- much smarter than us-- that make the world go round.//end of sarcasm

    Given the level of discourse it seems inconceivable that any party (other than libertarians) have given 1/2 a thought to what
    nefarious legislation the three letter agencies

  • But these people should remember that these politicians will put a little bit more effort into finding and punishing whoever did this than the average person.
  • by zedaroca ( 3630525 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @08:14PM (#53073169)

    This is irrelevant. Hacked people supposedly got hacked again...
    For actual news about the leaks you should go:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks [reddit.com]
    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/575e37/new_wikileaks_podesta_emails_part_five_673_more/ [reddit.com]
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks [twitter.com]

    Sample:

    Best Podesta leak pair: 1) HRC stating in 2014 that the Saud+Qatar govts fund ISIL and 2) Qatar giving Bill Clinton $1m for 5 minute meeting

    ABC Exec Ben Sherwood Pledges "Any and All ABC Platforms" to Help Hillary.

    CNN's Donna Brazile, now head of DNC, tipped off Clinton campaign about debate question

    Algeria Donated to the Clinton Campaign in order to get off the Terror Watchlist, according to Joe Scarborough

  • Waiting time. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @08:20PM (#53073197)
    Who the hell goes twelve hours after learning one of your accounts has been hacked without changing all your passwords? This guy deserved what he got.
  • by zedaroca ( 3630525 ) on Thursday October 13, 2016 @08:42PM (#53073277)

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786653209825861633 [twitter.com]

    No they didn't. We checked that the credentials had already been changed.

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Working...