Why the Lieberman Website Story is Bullshit.

[Skinner]

I'm watching MSNBC, and the guy from the Lieberman campaign is complaining that an alleged "hack" on their website is making it impossible for them to get their message to people who visit their site.

This is clearly bullshit. Here's why:

The Lieberman campaign has access to their server. Look what you get when you go to the lieberman homepage: http://www.joe2006.com

UPDATE ON THE ATTACK ON THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH: "For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe Lieberman's website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and the campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blumenthal for his review."

"We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."

This proves that they now have access to their server. If they were genuinely concerned about getting their message out to people who visit their site, then they would put their old homepage back up. They haven't done that. Instead, they put up this BS "update".

BOTTOM LINE: The existence of this "update" page proves that the Lieberman campaign has access to their server, and they could put up anything they want.

UPDATE: THEY CHANGED IT BACK! The page now shows the "This account is under construction Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you." Fortunately, I have a screen capture:

?click

[trumad]

1. That's right....

FTP should be working fine if they can upload their message....All they have to do is reload their index.htm file.

[TwentyFive]

196. Gets Iraq war off the front page. Lieberman must be glad - Bush/Rove too.

Lamont represents anti-Iraq war sentiment. The less they media reminds people of soldiers dying...the better LIEberman and pro war side does.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Somebody must have realized this. The whole thing is down right now.

[Skinner]

24. I got a screen cap of the update page.

?click

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. ROFL! I Love How Your Cap Makes It Say They Have Beer.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

167. Hey! You use Firefox! That makes Baby Bill cry!

You... you... COMMIE! :thumbsup:

[Rex]

172. And I just saved the pic to my HDD for all time or until the next format.

Joe must be desperate.

[Janice325]

116. I got "Under Construction" again.

Thanks Skinner, and the rest of ya'll who are keeping tabs on this. :grouphug:

[Lusted4]

197. They couldn't just bug there own phone like Rove told them. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Holy Cow I Just Got Done Reading The Update And Thought The Same Thing!

They are pulling out all the ploys today. It wreaks of total desperation but the shame is we know all too well that dirty tricks often times still work. So at the end of the day, hopefully the voters voices will be made heard that we want change.

[ClintonTyree]

134. "Holy" Joe and his cohorts are acting like true Republicans......

aren't they? :eyes: Dirty tricks, lies, innuendo and outright propaganda. All so "Holy" Joe can retain his seat at the right hand of george bush. :grr: I hope Lamont crushes him like the cockroach he is........ with "friends" like Joementum, who needs enemas? :shrug:

[krkaufman]

163. My hope is that this last minute Hail Mary by Holy Joe ....

... doesn't keep Ned from winning the Primary.

And then.... hopefully the State Attorney *will* followup on the issue -- and find that nothing was hacked, and that Lieberman's campaign was trying a dirty trick ... resulting in charges against Joementum staffers and the collapse of Joementum's plans for an Independent run.

(fingers crossed)

[Telly Savalas]

192. Not really.

Unlike this amateur night stunt, GOP dirty tricks typically get results.

Joementum might win today, but it won't be because of the 3 people that decided to vote for him based on this nonsense.

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. My local TV said it was this site.....

Lieberman2006.com

That had the problem

[Janice325]

When I tried the

Lieberman2006.com, I got this message:

There is no website configured at this address.

Verrry strange.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. It's free bad press for Lamont

They are getting the message out that they WANT to get out though, aren't they?

[Skidmore]

6. Skinner, do you know anyone in the media that this bit of technical

info can be stovepiped to where it would get on the news?

[robinlynne]

7. went to the link. got "this page is under construction"

[Occulus]

8. Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.joe2006.com. n/t

[Richard Steele]

9. Yes, it's clear that this is total BS.

I expected no less from Joe, after the last few weeks.

[MercutioATC]

10. It's "Under Construction" now...

[mwooldri]

75. Have they paid their hosting bill?

Sounds more like a page a web host would put up if the people renting space haven't paid their bill. That is what it looks like to me.

Maybe they have been hacked. Maybe they haven't.

Mark.

[kpete]

11. I smell me a Rove...

[Junkdrawer]

22. Rove's first big splash: Bugging his own campaign headquarters...

...

Rove soldiered on in obscurity until 1986, when he was working on the second campaign of Bill Clements, a Republican trying to recapture the governor's office after losing it to Democrat Mark White. Rove made news by going public with a complaint that an electronic bugging device had been found in his office--shortly before a scheduled televised debate between the two candidates. "We never took it seriously, because we knew nobody in our shop had anything to do with it," says Dwayne Hollman, who worked for White at the time. Hollman said it was assumed that it was a publicity stunt. "It was investigated by the FBI," Hollman said, "and nothing ever came of it."

Yet some wonder what "came of" Rove's meeting with FBI agent Greg Rampton, who conducted that investigation. Local authorities who looked into the bugging seem to agree with Hollman's assessment. "We were the first on the scene and concluded that Rove had hired a company to debug his office, and that the same company had planted the bug," says a source involved in the Travis County DA office's investigation. But the media reported that Rampton had determined there was nothing to pursue.

Two years later, Rampton began an investigation that involved his setting up shop in the offices of Garry Mauro, the state land commissioner and later the loser in the 1998 gubernatorial race won by George W. Bush. Mauro said Rampton informed him that a former Land Commission employee was involved in an appraisals scheme that involved the commission. "I told my general counsel to tell to come on in," Mauro said. Rampton accepted the invitation. "On the day of the Democratic state convention, I got a subpoena for every document you could possibly imagine," Mauro said.

...


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010305/dubose

[underpants]

28. That is exactly what came to mind

DING!

[smokey nj]

36. Mine as well. n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

35. BINGO and DING! Exactly what I thought of first also! See #13. ...n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

40. I was listening to Tweety talk to Lieberman's campaign mgr and ROVE

...was my first thought, as well!:grr:

[flpoljunkie]

12. Thanks, Skinner. Hope the clueless CNN will figure this out and soon.

[IChing]

27. CNN is not clueless they just use "truthiness" BTW thanks Skinner

Truthiness is a satirical term coined by Stephen Colbert in reference to the quality
by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut"
without regard to evidence, logic, or intellectual examination.



By using the term as part of his satirical routine, Colbert sought to critique the tendency to rely upon "truthiness",
and its use as an appeal to emotion and tool of rhetoric in contemporary socio-political discourse.
He particularly applied it to President Bush's modus operandi in nominating
Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and in deciding to invade Iraq.

[WiseButAngrySara]

13. Thanks so much for pointing that out! This is the reason I logged on

to DU just now! All the media can focus on right now are the very issues that they have REPEATEDLY ignored when done by the Republicans! I'm so infuriated by their obvious slant on 'the news'...why their current indignation when they failed repeatedly to report thousands of such Rovian tactics by Republicans in the past? The answer is HYPOCRISY. They are not 'bearers of the objective truth.'

[Craig3410]

I still get the "suspended page".

No update for me.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Hmm...

When I tried to go there, it took about 20 seconds for the page to resolve, and it was a default "Page under construction" page

Pings @ joe2006.com are returning reasonably.

Edit: Learn to use quotes properly.

[VolcanoJen]

15. Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skinner, I just want to kiss you!! ::yourock:

[Janice325]

16. I just tried that link a minute ago, and I got the

"under construction" message again. However, about 5 minutes ago, I tried the link and got the same message you did. HOWEVER, I did note that when I got the "Attack on Lieberman" message, the original url, http://www.joe2006.com, changed to http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/
Anyone have any idea what's going on???
k&r

[Dookiestix]

160. It's a redirect

Looks like they re-directed the website. But now it looks like they removed their accusation against Lamont that his people did it. Funny how the earlier screen capture off of someone's cache had the blatant propaganda in plain site with the redirect, and then subsequently removed it (quickly, I might add). This has Karl Rove's shit all over it.

This is just so unbelievably stupid and obvious. I wonder if Joe also believes that the Internets is a series of tubes, because he must think many of us are idiots to not catch this.

I also heard that the Lamont camp offered to send their people over and assist in fixing their site. They even said they could provide most of the information which they cached alread. Still no response from the Lieberman camp.

[dogday]

17. I am holding my nose, this

one stinks and reeks of deceit... I gotta tell ya, they work overtime, coming up with these schemes....

[mikelgb]

18. interestingly though....

I saw the story last night and clicked and saw this message:

This account is under construction
Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you.

then a while later in the evening it was this:

Vote for who you know, Vote Joe
Please check back soon.

this morning I saw it because it was still on my screen and it was back to normal.

now I click on your link and I do not see the message you report seeing I see this again:

This account is under construction
Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you.

It appears that the sight may actually be getting attacked repeatedly.

But I smell bs.

[janx]

26. I smell freepers! n/t

[JuniperLea]

45. I smell brain dead people

haha...

I could hear a little boy whisper when I read your post... hehe.

[Meshuga]

19. Perhaps the Host Provider

Took control of the site? I'm not trying to defend Lieberman's campaign but it is possible.

At the moment this is what is displaying at the site:

"This account is under construction
Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you."

That is a template message for a suspended hosting account.

[TheLeftyMom]

80. The URL says it's a suspended account

Did Joe forget to pay?

[Meshuga]

114. Perhaps

he didn't pay the bill. :-)

But a friend of mine used a content managent program to run his website and it was attacked by hackers not only once but twice. Eventually the host provider suspended my friend's account until he was able to find a solution that was more safe than the program he was using for the website.

Something similar could be happening to Lieberman's website where they have to keep the account suspended until the security holes are fixed. I have no clue! I don't know what happened to the site since I haven't been paying attention to this story from the begining. :-)

[flyarm]

20. this is a Rove tactic..without a doubt...and the media has played by

the Rove playbook from the get go...

and if anyone has any doubt at this point..and votes for the Rove stoolie Lie ber man...

then they get what they deserve!

if after almost 6 years of this same playbook of bullshit..the team doesn't get it..then they need to be retired from the field!
immediately!

this is a Rove blitz...and our team better wake up to the Rove media and the rove whore Joementum!

or get outta the way..a new team is coming..and we will wipe the scorebaord clean of them!.....


fly

[Bullwinkle925]

178. Absolutely - a true Rovian-knee-jerk reaction from me as well.

[KoKo]

21. Thanks Skinner...if MSNBC wanted to get to the bottom of it they could

instead they've interjected themself into the story by just repeating the Liberman campaign charges over and over. Plus did you hear Chris Jansing call Democrats the "anti-security party?" Karl Rove must have faxed that to her this a.m. and she's been witing for an opportunity to say that if Lamont wins...won't this be considered a vote for the "anti-security party."

I guess we can see what the November mid-terms are going to be...with the Media putting bogus stories out to try to interfere with the elections if the voting machines don't get us in some states the MSM will do it's best, as it as done in the past...but it will be Hell like we've never seen before.

[bleever]

23. Site developer's statement from this morning:

First posted by LynzM:


Hi, I'm the developer of joe2006.com; I'd like to clear up a couple things:

the website has suffered from a variety of attacks, including two episodes of "de-facing" where a hacker identifying himself as "ThHacker" performed a code/SQL injection and replaced the index page. This current attack is at this time continuing to disrupt display of the site and email communications for Sen. Lieberman, his staff and volunteers doing their job on election day.

In the short-term here, you may find some dark form of glee - but consider this: If you have any appreciation for the way that the internet has opened communications and dialogue and expanded the reach of candidates of all stripes; this is a very, very dark day regardless of where you stand in this particular election.

I ask you to set-aside for a moment the personal hatred on display here and stand for protecting the electoral process and the promise of the expansion of democracy on the internet. Consider the fundamental change to politics on the internet if security, not reaching voters must now become the primary objective for the interactive component of any campaign.

I respectfully ask that you help spread the word, whether this attack is from an overzealous supporter of Mr. Lamont or whoever it is. I urge you to call for whoever this is to cease the attack and let the election unfold in the way that Connecticut's voters choose when they stand before the voting machines.

To "ThHacker" - you've made your point.
Dan Geary | 08.08.06 - 11:50 am | #

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/ctblogger/115504248010119275/

[mikelgb]

34. If this is true, I agree with the sentiment.

[tridim]

49. What the hell is "code/SQL injection"?

I've been a web developer for 12 years and that's nothing but BS technobabble. If they replaced the html, fine.. Just say that, don't confuse everyone with bullshit terms that makes it sound more "serious" to MSM viewers.

SQL is a database query language and code is just code. So which is it Mr. Web developer? Give us the real details if you really know what you're talking about.

[Bretttido]

67. Actually, SQL/code injection is a common practice for hackers

It takes advantage of poorly written html/sql. If there is a form that accepts user input which is treated as valid input, the possibilities are endless.

For a GOOD user, someone could simply type the name "Bob" into a form and click submit. Their resulting database call could be something like:

INSERT INTO Users VALUES ('Bob')

But a NAUGHTY user, might try something devious like the name "Fred') GO drop database GO". Which would trick their system into making multiple commands

INSERT INTO Users VALUES ('Fred') GO drop database GO

If you didn't figure it out already, "drop database" completely deletes the named database and brings websites to a halt. I'm not saying I trust that this actually happened, but it could have. And if it did happen, their programmers suck balls.

[tridim]

81. I stand corrected

I guess I just don't have that hacker mindset any more. I gave it up back in 1985.

Luckily none of my sites build SQL queries via user input.

[Moochy]

184. Tainted inputs

Thats why as a developer you can never trust any inputs from the users.
You have to treat all inputs as tainted, then process them character by character to make sure that they are reasonable for the values intended; ie. no sql injection code contained in the address field.

[jberryhill]

102. That doesn't explain...

...how a hacker would manage to change the MX record in the zone file sufficient to screw up email.

Riddle me that.

[mhatrw]

110. I don't know how an SQL hack would disable email, either.

Good question.

[tbyg52]

131. Hey, we've only got their word

That their email is messed up. It might be, and this might really be a hack job, but I doubt it.

[mccoyn]

138. The host may have cut them off.

Knowing that a site was hacked, the host might want to cut off the entire account until things get straigtened out, to protect the other sites the host has.

[aldon]

70. Hack attempts, SQL Code injection, DDOS, etc

Hi. I am the technology coordinator for the Lamont campaign. I am following the discussions across the internet about the problems with Sen. Lieberman's campaign website very closely, in part, because I have been very concerned that we might experience similar sort of attacks.

'SQL Injection' is a well known web attack. It is not BS technobabble.

Check out the Wikipedia definition.

The sort of screens that have been displayed over the past day are the sort of screens typical of a site that has been hacked in such a way that the hackers have taken over the site and it is using to much computing resources, or of a site that has exceeded bandwidth parameters either because of unexpected volume or a distributed denial of service attack.

Dan has asked that we condemn the alledged attack. I do not know if there is in fact some sort of attack, or if there is what sort of attack it is or who is behind it. However, I will take him at his word and ask that if anyone knows anything about attacks on Sen. Lieberman's site, that they do everything in their power to stop such attacks.

I joined Ned Lamont's campaign because I believe in the friendly arguement around the dinner table about politics and the direction our country is headed. I believe that in a fair discussion, Ned will come out head and shoulders above Sen. Lieberman.

Let's work together to bring about a fair and open dialog and a democracy that our country can be proud of.

[annabanana]

117. Welcome to DU...

I sincerely hope that corporate media outlets don't dump the blame for this mess on Lamont's campaign (whether it's self-inflicted ala Rovian technique, or some other disrupter)

[NMDemDist2]

186. welcome to DU and good luck at the polls today!!

:hi:

[johnfunk]

193. You've nailed it, Aldon

... now, combine the ease with which a poorly designed site can be hacked with some of what the DUers have uncovered about joe2006.com's hosting: it was done on the dirt cheap, and I'd bet both the hosting company and alleged "webmaster" aren't exactly running the sort of software that precludes SQL or code/command injection attacks -- which means his campaign was not asking the right questions about their Web presence or Internet security in the first place.

Just another example of Joenertia inaction, if you ask me.

[mhatrw]

82. It's a first grade hack.

Any second grade webmaster should have protected against it.

[Ravenseye]

95. Bingo - Lieberman's guy was lax

I'm a web developer/designer...

I've had websites before that were attacked in this way, and what he mentions is valid, but my sites were unaffected, because if you just build your forms corretly in the first place, and do some just really basic coding to set them up, these kinds of attacks are completely and utterly useless. They run a few tries, nothing happens, they leave.

I've also had an entire web server hacked, which wasn't my finest hour. We had over 30 sites go down because someone got access to the server, the database, and just wreaked havoc, turned it into a spambox, wrecked all the sites...

We had them all back up running 100% within 4 hours. We brought up a new server, we created all the appropriate virtual servers and email users from our records. We re-uploaded all the sites from our code respository.

If it were one site they should have been able to have it up within a couple hours even if they had to start from scratch...well speaking as someone who has had this happen, and knows how to code...there are three options..

1) The web developer was lazy.
2) The web developer was incompetent.
3) It's being used for political purposes

[mhatrw]

101. Exactly. At worst, there should be nightly backups.

Even if the webmaster is a complete dolt, he should be able to lock the database completely in minutes while he figures out how to disable the specific database commands that the hacker is posting (and all the other common problematic posts while he's at it).

So what's the excuse for the site being down now, 12 to 16 hours after problems first became evident? There is none other than the same "incompetence" that Lieberman keeps lauding in his idol, Bush.

[Ravenseye]

125. I wouldn't bet against him being a dolt

I'm not ready to label this a political ploy simply because I've run into my fair share of 'webmasters' who are completely and utterly clueless and I have no idea how they get their jobs. A political organization like this would be RIPE to have some IT guy who doesn't know this stuff too well. Often they'll bring in an IT guy who knows phones top to bottom because they ahve so many volunteers calling they need him...but then the exchange server starts spouting flames and he is helpless.

Honestly when our server got attacked it was beyond repair. I didn't even bother locking anything. I just yanked the plug, so to speak, and disconnected it. I could tell it was utterly compromised down to the root level and knew there was no point risking anything. Who knows what was planted and hiding in some recessed corner.

In my opinion, you get attacked like this where you lose your security containment, you start fresh, and if you dont' have the code respository/ghosts/backups/whatever that would allow you to build your website from scratch in a matter of hours (or alot less depending on the size) then you're not worth your salt as an IT guy.

Actually....to put it bluntly, if I had all the necessary hardware, software, and backed up code and databases....I could BUILD a computer, INSTALL the server, UPLOAD the website, and get a brand new server, with the same old website, back up within that time...the longest parts would be waiting for installs to happen and if I had a basic server ghost that would be a snap.

That would include removing all the forms temporarily until the security issue was fixed.

12-16 hours and one site is still down? That's either insanely incompetent or it's gotta be political.

Like I said though, it could still go either way. I've known 'webmasters' who wouldn't have understood a word I just said, and I tried to dumb it down too...

[mhatrw]

143. Yes. Starting from scratch is the way to go. It's not that difficult.

My point was that a 10 second temporary fix to stop any future SQL hacks would be to make the database read only before going live while you install/write the scripts to protect your database that you should have in the first place.

And, yes, there are a lot of clueless webmasters out there, but SQL hacks are some of the very easiest hack to comprehend and protect against. And note that (if we are to believe the webmaster's account on this thread) this isn't the first time this happened:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1848632

[Ravenseye]

149. Well it depends

What other kind of access has that SQL hack gotten the guy. For all we know he used that and got root access to the entire server. Just making the database read only would be pointless if the hacker has that kind of control.

Plus it feels good to yank the cables from the back of the machine like you're saving someone's life. ;)

They're only easy if you know what you're doing. I mean I've LITERALLY had to deal with in house IT people who I had to explain how DNS works in terms that a kid could understand because they just couldn't understand why I needed access to their domain names on Network Solutions.

"but we already own them"
"I know but I need to change what nameservers they point to."
"why?"
"because we're moving the site, and the I need to change where the domain names point to."
"yeah but we already own the domain names."

[mhatrw]

157. Why am I laughing ...

when I know it's not funny?

Of course, I agree that you should start from scratch -- including, of course, resetting all previous passwords.

I agree that you need to know what you are doing to do this quickly (or at all, really), but we are talking about a campaign that probably has an IT budget of hundreds of thousands at minumum.

It's just silly to think that they couldn't have found a competent Lieberman supporting volunteer, much less a paid consultant, to help them with their security issues on a month's notice.

[Ravenseye]

161. I wonder what their budget is

I know multi-million dollar companies who have web budgets of under 1000 dollars and host their site on a cheapo virtual host. It makes no sense, but there are marketing managers who just don't understand. One person once asked me for a prospective budget, and I quoted out 1000 a month for a modest site, but with alot of database stuff going on, etc. and he thought there was a typo and I meant 100 a month. This from a company who had just built a brand new massive headquarters, hundreds of employees and huge budgets otherwise....but they just couldn't grasp the cost.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lieberman campaign had a web budget of less than that, with the bulk of it going to ensure bandwidth. 400 a month maybe?

Sure the IT budget is probably huge, but the web component will get the short shaft 9 times out of 10, from what I've seen.

I agree with you. It's silly. Yet I've seen it happen time and again because people are cheap (not frugal...cheap) and grub onto every dime they can thinking that they can get away with it.

[high density]

165. Bev Harris is/was probably running it

We all know how computer savvy she is.

[nolabels]

204. My keyboard is still waterproof from the factory

Nice try though :spray:

[Jeroen]

94. SQL / code injections are methodes used to hack websites.

Most developers know this.

Just google sql injection / code injections

http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-August/036386.html
http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/SqlInjection.asp#injection
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/sql-injection.html

EDIT: never mind, didn't saw previous responses

[tridim]

96. I had just never heard of the term SQL injection

Although I knew about the method and guard against it on my sites.

[mhatrw]

108. It's actually very simple to guard against.

All you do is write a script to filter out/disable all the dangerous combinations of symbols before you execute any user input in an SQL command.

Alternatively, if/when your website's user interface encounters a dangerous combination of user inputted characters, you simply erase the input and ask the user to resubmit whatever text he/she was trying to post.

[Wickerman]

51. Isn't Th Hacker a kiddiehacker software?

Might leave its imprint as ThHacker? Doubt its the individual who did the hacking.

[Junkdrawer]

58. "ThHacker" is a funny way to spell Rove n/t

[flyarm]

60. and if lie ber man has been being hacked before now he didn't

have the attorney general all over this??
or computer wizzes make his computers anti hackable??

kerry had paid people in fla in our campaign headqurters specifically there to maintain the computers..and to make sure they weren't hacked..they watched over them constantly!

this is total bullshit!!

rove rove rove rove rove rove rove rove rove rove!! we see your fingerprints!!!!!!!!!!

fly

[Greyhound]

63. Perhaps a more effective strategy would be to

KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE DOING!! Using Micro$hit tools and writing scripts is not development.

Do you imagine for one moment that every hi-profile website isn't going to come under attack? Amazon.com is under constant daily attack from thousands of would-be hackers (really just script kiddies) trying to make a name in the underworld, yet somehow they can miraculously stay up and running day after day, year after year. They have been successfully hacked in the past and they developed strategies and techniques to secure it. These methods are generally known and are made available to anyone that is interested.

Ironically, one of the reasons there are so many unsecured sites out there is because of Lieberman's (and Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic Wing of The Corporate Party) support in destroying the engine that brought the relative prosperity of the 90's.

[Marnieworld]

155. not written by a programmer

Just guessing of course but it seems odd that the "developer" (as if there's just one) would have such an eloquent and political statement ready just for this. Also it implies that it's so sad that they have to worry about security because of these new bad apples when anyone worth anything in IT is always concerned with security.

Seems so fishy. Desperate and pathetic.

[mnhtnbb]

25. Either Joe's camp is pulling a Rove or they don't have adequate

technical help. Either way, Joe stinks.

[mhatrw]

Yes. Either this is self-inflicted or they are helpless against a

grammar school hacker.

[lolly]

29. Insulting voters' intelligence?

I saw this story briefly on the FOX crawl at the YMCA gym this morning, and I immediately thought of Rove.

Why would Lamont bother to take down Lieberman's website? What the hell good would that do him?

But it fits right into their "mean bloggers being unfair to widdle Joey" routine.

But assuming much of Lamont's support is technocrati-driven, since internet-savy people are more likely to have access to more information, wouldn't those same people all immediately smell a rat here? The people who are most likely to fall for this would be the people stupid enough to be supporting Lieberman already/still.

And the way the "news" stations have all pounced on it so quickly is a little suspicious too. Were they tipped off to be ready to report on a story about Lamont's dirty tricks?

[flyarm]

41. gee hasn't little lord pissy pants spied on all of us on the internet??

and how about pissy pants letting us know if he spied on the Kerry campaign??

this is bullshit..its more of the ..opposites..what ever they say they do and mean the opposite..or whatever sick play they make they turn it and accuse others of their dirty deeds..

more rove bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fly

[Solly Mack]

30. Yep. They may as well ask Lamont when he stopped beating his wife

The attempted smear amounts to the same.

They're demanding Lamont acknowledge and denounce an attack no one knows actually took place, much less if Lamont was a part of it. I don't know that the Lieberman campaign didn't screw with their own website for purposes of claiming someone else did it.

By labeling it an attack by "our political opponents", Lieberman's people are hoping to cast a wide enough net so as to safely say they never accused Lamont - while doing just that. (as Lamont is a political opponent)

They can also claim they meant the net activists that have been maligned by Lieberman's campaign and not Lamont.

It's an accusation meant to cast doubt(smear) and at the same time have an out for those doing the accusing.

[Gregorian]

31. Let's all play The Blame Game.

Someone needs to tell Joe that victims don't do well in American society. Oh Joe, where's that momentum?

I'm seeing exit polls that don't match vote counts. We'll see...

[tridim]

32. There's no motive or political benefit for Lamont's staff to hack the site

None.

1. They would get caught via server logs
2. It went down only 24 hours before the primary
3. The result is a negative (as is being proven all over the MSM as I type)

[yodermon]

33. Ask the people at Joe's web hosting company

http://www.theplanet.com
That is the shop that is hosting Joe's website.

(Via reverse dns lookup of 69.56.129.130, which is www.joe2006.com's ip address).

Do you think THEY could confirm if a site has been "hacked" or not?

Or maybe, they could confirm non-payment of funds?
i.e., :rofl:
(see at link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nedlamont/209549380/ )

[satireV]

123. Whois results

Domain Name: JOE2006.COM
Registrar: BULKREGISTER, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.bulkregister.com
Referral URL: http://www.bulkregister.com
Name Server: NS2.THEPLANET.COM
Name Server: NS1.THEPLANET.COM
Status: ACTIVE
EPP Status: ok
Updated Date: 14-Jun-2006
Creation Date: 23-Jun-2002
Expiration Date: 23-Jun-2007


Note: Creation date, a 5 year domain registration. I would assume they PAID for 5 years at that time. I doubt they didn't pay their bill ... at least for domain registration. I suppose the Web Host bill may have come due though :)

[mom cat]

37. Nice piece of work Skinner!

:dem::bounce::bounce::toast::smoke::smoke::headbang::smoke::smoke::toast::bounce::bounce::kick:

[wryter2000]

38. Busted!

Way to go, Skinner. We need to call the talk shows if they don't hear about this. This has Rove written all over it.

[drbtg1]

53. At least get the story to nedlamont.com

They have a statement about the web site there.

[chill_wind]

66. Good point! nt

[mwooldri]

88. Well some people at nedlamont.com think the same way I do.

They think that they haven't paid their bill! It looks just like a page I would put up if I were hosting someone for a fee and they hadn't paid their bill.

Mark.

[AndyA]

39. So do they think everyone is going to feel sorry for good old Joe and

vote for him because his website was hacked? If hackers are able to take the site down, or make changes to it, the server is configured wrong, and somebody needs to take a look at it. It should not be that hard to keep the hackers out, once they determine how they're gaining access.

And yes, the fact that the message on the main page can be changed by Joe's people indicates they have access to their server, and can update it. They need to change some configurations and the password, and it should be secure again.

But I'm still not buying the story, I think KKKarl Rove must be advising them at this point. Desperation creates desperate acts.

[WiseButAngrySara]

42. Now they're reporting that it's a Federal Crime! I suppose if Diebold wins

this will be used to justify the discrepancies between their exit poll data and the final vote outcome!

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. I hope you're getting screen captures

of all the revised versions too?

This is too funny.

Joe Desperation.

[ronnykmarshall]

46. I hope Randi jumps on this today.

She was out sick yesterday, hopefully she'll be back today.

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. Crap. that evil DUer Skinner

caught me hacking my own website.



Maybe I should have had a V8 instead?

[Brazenly Liberal]

48. Another reason it's bullshit

One of the Liebereman spokesliars was on TV earlier claiming it was a Denial of Service attack. Bullshit. If it was a DOS attack, it would be difficult or impossible to connect to the site at all, but those who did connect would see the normal site, not "this site unavailable" or "down for maintenance" or "vote for the horror you know, vote for joe" or whatever it is at the moment.

Right now, I'm sure a lot of people are finding it difficult or impossible to connect to the site, but that isn't a DOS attack - that's the result of the overload of traffic you get when you're on every news program in the country whining about your website.

[Nikki Stone 1]

50. Where should we send this information?

Besides AA

[never_get_over_it]

52. This whole thing is a Rovian BS Lieberman desperate scheme

directed at their website because they THINK it is the rotten no good bloggers that have caused ALL of Joe's problems - so what better scheme than to claim their website has been attacked naturally by one of those nasty ass bloggers.....

[whometense]

115. that was my first thought as well -

It would have been idiotic for the Lamont people to pull such a stunt, and desperate times can bring out the bottom line worst in people...

[julialnyc]

54. Pay your bill Joe?

http://nedlamont.com/blog/978/desperation

[Fredda Weinberg]

55. I don't think it's so clear, Skinner

I'll wait for developments.

[Kingshakabobo]

76. Why? I wold like to hear the counter argument?

90. touche

[wicket]

56. Give 'em Hell, Skinner!!!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[chill_wind]

57. Skinner rocks. Kick kick kick. nt

[im10ashus]

59. Great work on the screen capture.

Is Lieberman being funded by republicans? Because this smells an awfully lot like Rove.

[lonestarnot]

61. I would say that if they waited until today to get their message

out, that they are shit out of luck and they are probably better off to keep their message a secret.

[tbyg52]

62. It's been changing all morning

I wish I'd done screen shots, darn it. I happened to have nothing else to do but mess around on the computer today, and I saw at least four different displays at various times during the morning. I"m no expert, but that sure doesn't seem indicative of a hack to me. Obviously they can change *something* on the site.

[Nikki Stone 1]

64. Maybe you can ask and see if others saved any

It would be interesting to see them

[NVMojo]

65. Lying clones of LIEberman!! Spread this far and wide!!!

stupid MSM doesn't know the right questions to ask, does it??

[Lindacooks]

68. PLEASE send this to Olbermann!!

He would do a piece on it, I know he would!!

[ClassWarrior]

71. You send it to Olbermann!!! Here's his email:

[e-mail]

and

[e-mail]

NGU.

[Catchawave]

74. I sent this thread to Olbermann about 30 minutes ago !!!!

Stay tuned :hi:

[Lindacooks]

100. Fabulous!!

:)

[Lindacooks]

99. Will do!

I just didn't want to horn in if Skinner wanted to do it himself. After all, he discovered this, so it's his find.

[ClassWarrior]

107. Hey, the more the merrier, right Skinner?

B-):thumbsup:

NGU.

[senseandsensibility]

69. kick

Is anyone sending this to the cable news stations? I just heard Franken on AAR talking about a hack from Lamont supporters. They're buying into this too! We need to get the word out.

[citizen snips]

72. he is really desperate.

[Turn CO Blue]

73. Kos is also investigating and smells a scam or coverup:

His theory is that the campaign simply failed to pay their bills for the host.

See the bottom of this diary on DKos:
phttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/124621/2122]

(snip)
What's more, check out the URL that joe2006.com resolves to:



server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/



"Suspended". Accounts are generally suspended for one of two reasons: 1) inappropriate or illegal content (which we can obviously rule out in this case), or 2) from lack of payment. And that would make sense given that the first screen when Lieberman's site went down was, indeed, a request that the website owner contact their billing department:

(end of snip)

[Strawman]

77. is blogging the same as hacking?

cause those mean bloggers hate poor Joe :sarcasm:

If they are faking this, it is truly pathetic.

[Swamp Rat]

78. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! ... WHAT IDIOTS!!!!! ... GEAUX SKINNER!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



:kick: GEAUX SKINNER!!!! :kick:

[Swamp Rat]

109. I just emailed the OP and a link to: Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Thom

Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Al Franken, Bernie Ward, and a few other Radio Gods. :)

[Lochloosa]

137. Trouble Maker....

:toast:

[hunter]

175. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! You got, um, Denial of Service, too, Swamp Rat!

"This image removed due to high-bandwidth usage."

ImageShack^(R)

[fooj]

79. My view...

Lamont needs to make a statement...

How dare the Lieberman campaign attack the honor and credibility of his staff. WE would never tolerate this type of behavior. Period.

[senseandsensibility]

85. He has.

There's a thread on GD about it now.

[spooky3]

87. They did--see the other threads on this.

They denounced a hack--if that happened--and absolutely denied having anything to do with his site.

[fooj]

171. Right on...

Thanks for cluing me in. :hi:

[BuyingThyme]

83. Here's what's happening: Smokin' Joe needs to legitimize

his run as an independent. That's what this does.

It makes this silly primary election illegitimate, and convinces people that the REAL election doesn't come until in November.

Not gonna work.

[Strawman]

86. Bingo

[IChing]

93. He has until 4:00 pm tomorrow to do so according to state

deadlines

heard it on Democracy Now this morning.

[dogday]

84. The page that was up was C-Panel's control page

I work a small server and we use c-panel, so I have seen this page a million times.. This page means the site is set up but there are no pages, especially an index.htm page configured for the site...

They had control via C-panel files module and more than likely an ftp program as well....

[adarling]

89. wow joementum is losing steam

this is the only crap they could come up with? lame lame lame!

[pnwmom]

91. Shades of Karl Rove! Except way too incompetent.

I'm disgusted.

[Nikki Stone 1]

98. All they needed was the headline on CNN--the smear

The technique could be third rate

[Vinnie From Indy]

118. Exactly

It is a classic "swiftboat" technique. In the case of the "swiftboaters", just spend a few thousand to buy an ad and place it in one or two nespapers and then let CNN, NBC, FOX NEWS, MSNBC and the rest do their thing. They will incessantly run the ad or discuss the allegation under the guise of political discussion and news reporting, The end result however is that the completely false allegation gets MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars of FREE ADVERTISING. There is no reason to spend any money by the candidate or the party to get a smear campaign off the ground when the networks will GIVE them all the FREE time they need to implement their smear campaign. There are no forms to fill out or contributions to be logged using this technique. IT'S ALL FREE !!!!!

The Dems will face the EXACT same thing in a few weeks and I have a great fear they will be unprepared.

[mcscajun]

92. The NYT is calling for links to screen captures...

...but of those showing non-payment of bills.

Still, wouldn't this be a good place to send your screen capture anyway?
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=481
email: [e-mail]

[seafan]

97. I heard Al Franken say about an hour ago that the site wasn't hacked.....

..he said someone (on his staff?--I didn't catch it..) had captured a screen shot of Lieberman's web site just before it went down and there was some type of message that indicated for someone to contact the web master for payment for renewal of the site... sorry to be so sketchy, but this is the gist of what Al said.



Hat tip to julialnyc on Skinner's journal thread for the link to Lamont's blog with the info!


http://nedlamont.com/blog/978/desperation




Larger version:



?v=0


So, Joe, whaddya know?? :toast: :spank: :rofl:



(Cross-posted from this thread)

[Nikki Stone 1]

104. So you think they didn't pay the bills?

?

[Swamp Rat]

111. LOL!

Exactly! ;) :rofl:

[seafan]

121. Yes, I think he let his web site expire in a blaze of deadbeat glory.

And if he can throw some blame for his (now dead-end) web site by falsely accusing his opponent of *hacking*it... he is showing us that he has nothing left to lose.

Just sour grapes, this is. Just sour grapes.

[klook]

119. They haven't lost the domain.

If you look up www.joe2006.com on whois.com, it shows that it doesn't expire until some time in 2007. So it's more like they haven't paid the bill to their ISP.

[SallyMander]

103. Are you CT-ers

hearing any exit polls at this point? I don't have cable TV and i'm curious what the situation looks like so far!

[LynzM]

120. Don't think there will be any....

For a race this "small"... they don't usually EP the primaries, apparently.

[JerseygirlCT]

181. I haven't heard anything at all. Just waiting! nt

[rhombus]

105. Joe's site was working perfectly late last night

So they don't have backup files? This is just hogwash from Lieberman because he knows he's going to lose today.

[chat_noir]

106. perpetrated by a GOP HACK

[klook]

112. Got Suspended page

www.joe2006.com forwarded to http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/

[MrCoffee]

113. All your tubes are belong to us!

[VolcanoJen]

129. ROFL!!

:rofl:

Damn, it's fun around here this afternoon. :D

[Nikki Stone 1]

122. kick

:kick:

[Generator]

124. Of course the site is "under construction"

Joe is busy changing himself into either an Independent or a Republican as we speak.

"I'm the same Joe, just with a new letter behind my name"

[Debi]

150. To unveil tomorrow AM after he refuses to conceed tonight

the new (improved?) Joe Lieberman - Independent web site. DUH :eyes: wasting no time in trying to cheat the people of CT

[Subdivisions]

126. Why Skinner's analysis is bullshit

I am a webmaster. Denial of Service happens all the time.

Your analysis is bullshit because you claim that the Lieberman camp does indeed have access to their website because of the message you captured with the statement by Sean Smith.

Because the statement is there, you ASSUME they have access to their SITE. But you screen capture supports my statement that your analysis is bullshit. If you look at the screenie agian, you'll see that the suspended.page comes from server1.myhostcamp.com, NOT FROM joe2006.com.

The page everyone first saw is a page that comes standard with most any server. It can be edited to show Leiberman's statement, which is probably only possible if the server admin allows it. He/She migh allow it because Lieberman's site was indeed hacked and the server admin thought it only fair to post the statement or the server admin might be a Lieberman supporter (which makes it easy to assume collusion). The simple fact of the matter is that it's NOT the standard issue suspended or construction page that is the issue here. Whether or not the bill was paid isn't the issue either. In a perfect world, of course the man wants his website available on election eve and day.

The issue here is, WHO is responsible for the site going down? Is it Ned Lamont himself (I don't think so on the grounds that I don't think he's that stupid) giving the order to take it down? Or, is it a Lamont supporter, acting independently, that took it down? Or, is it Lieberman that gave the order to take it down? Or, was it someone that just hates Lieberman that took it down? Or, was it Karl Rove's minions that took it down? OR... I could go on and on.

The reason Skinner's analysis is bullshit is simply because he just plain doesn't know. Just as the rest of us don't know.

I do know one thing, though. If Lamont wins, it won't be because good ole' dependable Joe's website had an unwelcome experience.

[Skinner]

152. Perhaps the word "bullshit" is a little bit strong -- for both of us.

It is true that we do not know for certain what happened. There are actually two separate issues here, which my post above does not adequately separate.

The first issue is whether Lieberman's website has actually been hacked, and who may have done it. You are correct that we do not know what happened, and we do not know who is responsible. For all we know, it could have been a hacker, or it could have been Joe's campaign exceeding their monthly bandwidth allotment and getting the plug pulled.

The second issue is whether the Lieberman campaign had actually lost the ability to communicate their message on the Internet to the people who went to joe2006.com. The Lieberman campaign spokesman was on television claiming that because of this situation, they had no way of communicating to the people who went to their website. When the spokesperson was making the claim it was obviously false, as their campaign was able to put up a statement which was delivered to anyone who typed in the address joe2006.com.

So, perhaps they did not have access to their own server. But the Lieberman campaign had the means to deliver their message to anyone who typed joe2006.com into their web browser, and yet they chose not to take advantage of the opportunity. Instead, they put up a statement about the alleged hack. (Which later disappeared, I do not know how or why or by whom.)

But this much we know: The Lieberman campaign had the opportunity to deliver a particular message to visitors to their website, and they chose to post a statement insinuating that Ned Lamont has some responsibility for an alleged hack.

I think it's fairly obvious what message the Lieberman campaign wanted to send on election day.

[Subdivisions]

156. I digress...

hopefully it wasn't anything shady from either side. It's hard not to consider the possibilities, I know.

[Ian David]

188. I flushed too much printer paper down the internets & it clogged his tube

[IndianaGreen]

199. kos said on Olbermann that Lieberman had "el cheapo" server

Paying for very basic services on a server that was used by others. Kos said that this illustrated how incompetent the Lieberman campaign has been.

[Montauk6]

127. A Question: Are they using electronic ballotting in CT?

If so, perhaps (if Skinner's theory is accurate), this is just a slick prelude to a "we wuz robbed" scenario if Lamont wins. OR if Lamont loses and there's a question of any hanky-panky with the ballots, Joemental can say as a cheap alibi, "well someone hacked our site as well."

[JHB]

128. It should be interesting to see if they did contact the US Attorney, et al

...and how far any investigation goes if the "disruption" was bogus.

[LoZoccolo]

130. The charge that this is "bullshit" is not a strong one.

As mentioned in this thread, the SQL/code injection is a hack which relies on the content of a web site (in this case, user entry) in order to exploit it. There is a perfectly good possible explanation for not bringing the site back up: there may be something on it which would allow it to be hacked again, which could possibly lead to offensive or illegal content being posted to it.

[Subdivisions]

132. EXACTLY!

But, you know, some people just have to find conspiracy in every little action.

[Festivito]

147. Yep. We should call for FINDING THE HACKER and prosecuting.

My bet is that there is a Rove operative, pretty smug, chuckling to himself saying that they won't even look for me!

We should pounce on this hacker whoever he/she is. And, demand he be found.

[Deb]

133. Thank you! A Top Ten! And they made all those

changes last night while being "hacked", I couldn't figure out how and thought it was my lack of understanding how sites work.

Filthy dirty rovarian tactic. No matter how this vote pans out today, he should be kicked out of the Dem party or at least lose his Senate Committee seats. Beyond disgusted here.

[Subdivisions]

136. It still is..

your lack of knowledge of how websites and web servers work.

You believe something just because you read it?

Here's one for you.

Go get under your bed because an asteroid is headed right for your house.

[Deb]

146. No, I believe it because

I saw the changes take place last night and have never known a website owner to be able to make those changes during a real hack. There were two other "Pro-Lieberman" changes that Skinner doesn't have copies of in his post. Please enlighten me with your knowledge if you think this site Admin is leading us astray.

[Subdivisions]

180. Of course, the site could have been just fine...

and all this is a desperate political play on Lieberman's part, after all, at this point, what does he have to lose?

I'm simply saying that it is just as likely, maybe more so, that the site went down legitimately. As a webmaster, I can tell you this:

Let's say that a lot of voters were doing some last-minute soul-searching/research and decided to visit the joe2006.com site to get information.

Now, let's say that their account is hosted on a shared server, rather than a dedicated server, as most temporary sites are. And, let's assume that they got a hosting account they felt reasonably sure would provide adequate bandwidth. Now, let's just say that the person in charge of finding hosting for joe2006.com knows all about politics and campaigning but doesn't know diddly-squat about bandwidth limitations or hosting a website.

Having supposed and assumed all of that, it is quite possible that last-minute traffic either tripped the bandwidth limit, which could trip the suspended page (not all servers serve a "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded" page) and the need to call billing to buy more bandwidth or overloaded the "shared" server, which could trip the suspended page to keep Lieberman's site from taking down all the other sites on the "shared" server. Also, a DOS attack could do the same thing, running out the bandwidth or tripping server security to suspend the site in order to protect other customers' sites.

I really don't know what happened. I'll wait to make any additional comments on this matter only if it proves to be the shady underdoings of a corrupt campaign and not some server/hosting issue.

[Cocoa]

135. I disagree

if I'm understanding your argument (and correct me if I'm not), the key seems to be this claim:

If they were genuinely concerned about getting their message out to people who visit their site, then they would put their old homepage back up.

This claim is reasonable, but it's hardly a convincing argument that the entire story is B.S.

[Swamp Rat]

140. Yes, this should be fleshed out, but

I don't think Skinner said "the entire story is B.S." - What does 'the entire story' mean?

[Peanutcat]

145. Then why does the page content keep changing, hmmm?

There's been at least 3 changes(with actual screenshots!) that I know of:

1. The account wasn't paid for

2. The site has been hacked

3. The site is under construction

Now which is it?

[Cocoa]

148. I think #2

what do you think?

[Peanutcat]

139. From DKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/7/202158/2423

And an update(scroll past the Fox News crap):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/8/124621/2122

[proud2BlibKansan]

158. from Lamont's site:

The host for Joe2006.com (MyHostCamp) only offers 3 hosting plans with the largest plan offering 10 Gb of data transfer a month. Assuming an average webpage size of ~ 50 kb, this allows only ~200,000 hits a month – or ~ 5 per minute. For most sites that a lot of space, but for a campaign like this I speculate it was not enough and thus the failure.
Aug 8, 12:48 PM

[Clarkie1]

141. Dunno...I'll await the results of the review from the Attorney General. nt

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bretttido]

153. Oh my GAWD

He said 'bullshit', we better call the word-police and send him to jail forever and disregard all logical facts he points out. He is obviously just a raging lunatic on a mission to disrupt society and destroy our children's ears. :sarcasm:

154. get real

[racaulk]

185. Please.

[marmar]

144. Pathetic and sad...

An online Reichstag burning. How low can Joe go?

[Bretttido]

151. Either way, this is reason to vote LAMONT

If this is just a hoax, then obviously Lieberman is a lying sack of shit and is not worthy of being in the US Senate. If on the other hand, his site was actually hacked, what does that show about his management abilities when a BASIC campaign site is hacked and brought down for more than 24 hours. HELLO? This guy is the ranking democrat on the Homeland Security committee. Do we want a Homeland Security website hacked and all of its information divulged to third parties while it remains down for 24+ hours? I don't think so.

[Crowskie]

166. That was my thought exactly.

[The Stranger]

159. Wow, good work. Technically, very impressive.

[Truthiness Inspector]

162. Very interesting.

It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out.

[Breeze54]

164. I'm getting the same message--

This account is under construction.
Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you.

http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/

What a jerk Lieberman is! He's showing his true colors, that's for sure!
Blame the other guy first before you know what the hell you're talking about!

Go Lamont!!!!

[seafan]

168. See KOS right now: Lieberman exceeded his bandwidth and was shut down.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/153827/3493

CT-Sen: Why Lieberman's site is down
by kos
Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 12:38:27 PM PDT

Two posts down it's clear that Lieberman's website isn't suffering from a Denial of Service attack.

But now I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman's site went down.

They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your shitty service goes out.

For their part, the Lamont campaign has offered its technical expertise to get Lieberman's site back up (which could be done in an hour by a competent sysadmin), and has added a link to the googlecached version of Lieberman's site at the top of their blog.

One side is acting mature, the other is running around making baseless accusations.

Update: Dan Gerstein, Lieberman spokesperson, admits they have no evidence Lamont's campaign or his supporters are behind their website woes.

I'm telling you, it's down because they were too cheap to pay for quality hosting. That's a lesson to all of you campaigns skimping on hosting. $15 won't cut it.

Update II: Joe's site shares one server with 73 other sites. They pay $15/month for an overcrowded server, and then they blame others when it goes down? Full list of sites on Joe's server on the flip.

And Lieberman blames his opponent.

It's time for Joe to go. Say goodnight, Joe.

[2008]

189. good link & info -- this should be a separate thread

this Lieberman character is one stale cracker

MyHostCamp? bandwidth limit?

I'm no strategist, but common sense says you put some money into your website if you're running for the U.S. Senate

[LincolnMcGrath]

169. That is just Joe, borrowing a page from Karl Rove.

[FighttheFuture]

170. Exactly! Joe's a star student of the Prince of Lies.

[Jersey Devil]

173. Skinner, maybe they can't afford the $20/mo DU pays for hosting?

ROFLMAO, they pay $15/mo! That page announcing their web site has been attacked is about all they could get to work on it for $15/mo for Chrissakes!

[IrishJoe]

174. Joe Lieberman the new Tonya Harding

This whole “someone hacked my website and that’s why I’m losing the primary” bit strikes me as a rehash of the “Tonya Harding: the laces broke on my skates and that’s why I failed to win gold at the Olympics” routine. I see in my mind Tonya crying on the ice to the judges and her face suddenly morphs into Lieberman’s.

[geniph]

176. Oh my god, there really ARE too many internets in the tubes!

Quick, send him a powerball to unblock his tubes!

Bwahahahahaha...who's his webmaster, Senator "Tubes" Stevens?

[Hippo_Tron]

177. Big K&R

[CabalPowered]

179. With a budget like his, he should've had a whole cluster of servers

in a colocation rack with spare components at arms reach.

[Career Prole]

182. Ted Stevens should offer his help. Joementum's tubes are

obviously plugged, impeding the flow to his dumptruck and causing the internets he gets to be seriously delayed.

C'mon Ted! Joementum's campaign doesn't savvy the internets like you do! Roto-root Joe's tubes for 'im!

[David Zephyr]

183. Skinner said "bullshit". And I say also say "bullshit"

Leave it to Joe Lieberman to stoop to the lowest of lows in his egomania and unbridled ambition to pull a Karl Rove stunt.

I hope this sack of shit gets trounced in the election today.

And if he "splits" the vote in the General Election and a Republican wins, then at least the dependable Bush ally in the Senate will not be from our party.

[Subdivisions]

187. Check out this post...

Just as I said in two other threads...bandwidth limitations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1849446&mesg_id=1849446

[The Count]

190. Adding the last thread: using cheap host - limited service- Wonkette

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1851548

[autorank]

191. K&R...That's just great cyber journalism..."THE DOG THAT DIDN'T BARK"

What an obvious clue. I guess the tradition of B.S. in that campaign is unstoppable.

:rofl:

[autorank]

200. Here's what probably happened - NO backup, too embarassed to say.

The best thing that happend tonight was that Lieberman lost.

The second best thing that happened tonight is that he was busted for fibbing about his web site.
So he had access to the site to post the notice, brilliant deduction and so basic.

Why go through all of this? Because he didn't back up; his staff lost the whole site and contrived this cover story to cover their ineptitude. Go figure...

:)"It's not the lie, it's the coverup.":)

[Iniquitous Bunny]

194. Damn strait!

I don't think anyone will be fooled.

[slackmaster]

195. Thank you Skinner

When something needs to be said, you are never afraid to step in and say it.

[smtpgirl]

198. I love this, Lieberman, SHMUCK for using a 3rd party web hosting

COMPANY, I mockingly said AOL broadband on another thread, but this is the low of the low.

I guess he doesn't know how to use the "Internets" either!!!

UPDATE ON THE ATTACK ON THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH: "For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe Lieberman's website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and the campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blumenthal for his review."

"We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."

[chill_wind]

201. Ah man. I hope all this stuff has been diligently saved

and the above accusations framed and saved all over the net tubes for posterity.

Sad, sad, sad. Hang it up Senator Lieberman. Hang it up.

[Broken_Hero]

202. Thanks for the info...:) nt

[bridgit]

203. makes sense to me...

[Guy Noir]

205. Great Catch...

The campaign is vomiting in its lap.