backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Oct 5 at 12:24 AM


  (Source: 20th Century Fox)
According to the White House, no data was accessed or stolen from classified networks

The White House announced that it had been the victim of a cyber attack, but the hackers didn't get away with any valuable information.

According to a report from Politico, the attack was geared toward a White House Military Office computer system. However, the White House said that the attack was isolated and that it affected an "unclassified network," so no data was stolen. 

It was confirmed that the hackers were from China, and that the method for the attack was "spear phishing." This means that the hackers sent an email that contained links or download attachments that were labeled with important tags or phrases to lure in the reader. However, once they click on the links or download the attachment, malware is released into the computer system.

Just last month, it was announced that the White House is working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and others to create an executive order to counter cyber security threats. However, many argue that an executive order isn't good enough -- they say cyber security legislation is necessary because it can offer greater consequences for hackers, give the DHS funding for cyber security workers, etc. 


Source: Politico



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Just saw this
By Ringold on 10/2/2012 12:06:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
when in fact he's been the strongest leader we've had since Nixon.


LOL

Nixon got the Vietnamese to the table because they actually believed if they didn't stop jerking around, he was going to turn the country in to a nuclear wasteland. When Nixon issued threats, the world listened.

When Obama wags his finger, a mob in Lahore burns a flag, an al Qaeda cell attacks an embassy, and Iran spools up another set of centrifuges.

Please, the only thing Obama does better than Nixon is cover up his shady dealings, otherwise Nixon would've been a two-termer. One of Nixon's vertebrae had more strength then Obama's entire spine, and the entire world knows it. Just read the withering criticism of his foreign policy in the European press; even those lefties know Obama's failed to earn respect.


RE: Just saw this
By jeffkro on 10/2/2012 12:19:20 AM , Rating: 4
Uhm, not to poop on your point but the Vietnamese managed to soundly kick the ass of the premiere super power. Not exactly the best example of Nixon's leadership abilities.


RE: Just saw this
By Ringold on 10/2/2012 12:42:34 AM , Rating: 3
That's a long, long debate. The Army asked for vastly larger forces from the start, to overwhelm the country. Kennedy compromised, split the difference between "Why are we there?" doves and "KILL THE COMMIE" hawks, and sent troop numbers useless for either side.

But, the Vietnamese and Taliban are at this exact same juncture; do we keep biting at their ankles until they leave, bloody their nose as much as possible, or negotiate?

Nixon got them to the table, allowed us to leave in a more orderly way, because they feared his balls of steel, and his "private" threats of nuclear war, conveniently "leaked" by the State Department. They believed and respected him, so they came to the table after years of wrangling.

Obama thought he had the Taliban at the table; oops, they were fakes. Then he did have them, but I think it was late last year or early this year the Taliban walked out and haven't been back. Why should they negotiate? They know they've won, just have to keep pounding, and they might even run us out before the current 2014 date.

Starkly different outcomes. And, again, the Iranian example. Vietnam we got to the table and got them to agree to what we wanted; Obama can't keep Iran at the table, much less agree to shut down a single centrifuge.

The differences between Nixon's achievements and Obama's are huge, I'm not saying we didn't get a bloody nose in Vietnam. Just hilarious to try to compare Obama to Nixon.


RE: Just saw this
By Ringold on 10/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Just saw this
By aharris02 on 10/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: Just saw this
By Rage187 on 10/2/2012 11:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
what? His whole presidency has been nothing more than bringing up Bush anytime he can't resolve a problem.


RE: Just saw this
By Reclaimer77 on 10/2/2012 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 1
What??? 4 years later he's STILL blaming what he's inherited from Bush on all our problems!

Seriously what is wrong with you people? Obama's scorecard is fix problems: 0 Blame Bush: 186.


RE: Just saw this
By jeffkro on 10/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Just saw this
By Ammohunt on 10/2/2012 2:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
We won every battle in Vietnam, we killed enemy at an almost 20 to 1 ratio; it was not a military defeat in Vietnam. What lost it was weak willed leftist presidents trying to run a polite war coupled with the American counter culture movement that broke the will of the American people in turn betraying the very Vietnamese they so wanted to help.


RE: Just saw this
By Jeffk464 on 10/2/2012 7:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
That's where you miss the point their strategy was never to win some big battle to push the US out of vietnam. He even said the Tet offensive was not designed to win terroritory but was simply designed to demoralize americans when reported in the American media, which it did perfectly. You assume that the only way to win a war is to defeat the enemy on the battlefield, that's incorrect.


RE: Just saw this
By Ammohunt on 10/3/2012 5:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You assume that the only way to win a war is to defeat the enemy on the battlefield, that's incorrect.


Seems you need to study some; its historic fact that defeating the enemy on the battlefield using extreme prejudice is exactly how you win wars. This war would have been wrapped up in a matter of a few years if ridiculous limitations like not bombing the north weren't put in place.


RE: Just saw this
By Ringold on 10/2/2012 2:28:09 PM , Rating: 1
Talkin' 'bout history, son! 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Kissinger got the Peace Prize for it -- kids today might not know it, but back then, they gave that out for actual accomplishments, not future hope, like how Obama got his.


RE: Just saw this
By Paj on 10/2/2012 8:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just read the withering criticism of his foreign policy in the European press; even those lefties know Obama's failed to earn respect.


Er, pretty much everyone in Europe LOVES Obama, especially the public.

Bush managed to alienate most of Europe (apart from the UK) by going into Iraq. They saw him as a warmongering oaf. German and French media in particular mocked him regularly, eagerly awaiting his next gaffe.

When it comes to Obama, some elements of the German press reject his criticism of the Euro crisis. But overall, the impression of the US in Europe has increased dramatically during his presidency.


RE: Just saw this
By Ringold on 10/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Just saw this
By Jakeisbest on 10/2/2012 3:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
Any sources for those articles, polls, and papers from Europe? Or is this just your confirmation bias running wild?


RE: Just saw this
By Jakeisbest on 10/2/2012 3:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
That is a very creative remembrance of the Pairs Peace Accords. Nixon couldn't even get the South Vietnamese to sign the peace accord which he approved in 1973. Meanwhile the north never actually stopped fighting.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki