NSA Secret cyber weapons stolen - in 2013 and apparently continually since

[werepossum]

Have you folks seen this? Due perhaps to my drastic reduction in news consumption once the 2016 Presidential election resolved into Cheeto Jesus v. the Hildabeast, this wasn't at all on my radar. Apparently someone calling themselves the Shadow Brokers either infiltrated the NSA or hacked the NSA and stole not only their highest secret hacking tools, but also their cyber weapons, and we STILL aren't even sure if it was a hack or an inside job. Apparently we're fighting a shadow war - and losing - and we're not even sure with whom we are fighting. The theft or hack was apparently in 2013 (latest date of the tools which have surfaced) but did not start surfacing until 2015, and it's unclear what relationship (if any) exists to Snowden and/or the CIA's two high profile data breaches. And to make it worse, many of the cyber attacks suffered by American and Western allies since 2015, including ransomware, have been using the NSA's own tools.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html

WASHINGTON — Jake Williams awoke last April in an Orlando, Fla., hotel where he was leading a training session. Checking Twitter, Mr. Williams, a cybersecurity expert, was dismayed to discover that he had been thrust into the middle of one of the worst security debacles ever to befall American intelligence.

Mr. Williams had written on his company blog about the Shadow Brokers, a mysterious group that had somehow obtained many of the hacking tools the United States used to spy on other countries. Now the group had replied in an angry screed on Twitter. It identified him — correctly — as a former member of the National Security Agency’s hacking group, Tailored Access Operations, or T.A.O., a job he had not publicly disclosed. Then the Shadow Brokers astonished him by dropping technical details that made clear they knew about highly classified hacking operations that he had conducted.

America’s largest and most secretive intelligence agency had been deeply infiltrated.

“They had operational insight that even most of my fellow operators at T.A.O. did not have,” said Mr. Williams, now with Rendition Infosec, a cybersecurity firm he founded. “I felt like I’d been kicked in the gut. Whoever wrote this either was a well-placed insider or had stolen a lot of operational data.”

The jolt to Mr. Williams from the Shadow Brokers’ riposte was part of a much broader earthquake that has shaken the N.S.A. to its core. Current and former agency officials say the Shadow Brokers disclosures, which began in August 2016, have been catastrophic for the N.S.A., calling into question its ability to protect potent cyberweapons and its very value to national security. The agency regarded as the world’s leader in breaking into adversaries’ computer networks failed to protect its own.

“These leaks have been incredibly damaging to our intelligence and cyber capabilities,” said Leon E. Panetta, the former defense secretary and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. “The fundamental purpose of intelligence is to be able to effectively penetrate our adversaries in order to gather vital intelligence. By its very nature, that only works if secrecy is maintained and our codes are protected.”

And just to add a note of pure humor, last September the Deep State spies apparently paid a Russian a $100,000 advance on a $1,000,000 payment for "compromising material on President Trump" which turned out to be "unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data." Supposedly this was an attempt to recover the NSA's stolen hacking tools (which the NSA apparently believes cannot be copied and are cleverly disguised as a silent video of a man in a hotel room talking with two women) which only coincidentally included supposed "compromising material on President Trump" that turned out to be an unidentifiable man engaging in purely pedestrian activity. Because when an organization is completely embarrassed and shown up as incompetent, the natural way to recover is to launch a laughably stupid operation which fails and then offer up an impossibly stupid explanation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/...eakingNews&contentID=66496551&pgtype=Homepage

Now you know.

 

[Thump553]

It's early, and I only skimmed the NYT article, but I'm completely confused about two fundamental points in the CIA's analysis:

(1) How do you "recover" stolen hacking tools? I've never heard of a digital anything that can't be copied.

(2) The CIA understandably didn't want to be seen as buying Russian blackmail info on Trump (that was J. Edgar Hoover's specialty). So why did they even enter into the $1,000,000 purchase agreement and more importantly why did they actually pay the $100,000? Either one of those gives exactly the impression the CIA was purportedly trying to avoid. Was this supposed to be a sting or snatch operation that went bad?

Sounds like a clusterf*ck run by imbeciles.

 

[ivwshane]

It's early, and I only skimmed the NYT article, but I'm completely confused about two fundamental points in the CIA's analysis:

(1) How do you "recover" stolen hacking tools? I've never heard of a digital anything that can't be copied.

(2) The CIA understandably didn't want to be seen as buying Russian blackmail info on Trump (that was J. Edgar Hoover's specialty). So why did they even enter into the $1,000,000 purchase agreement and more importantly why did they actually pay the $100,000? Either one of those gives exactly the impression the CIA was purportedly trying to avoid. Was this supposed to be a sting or snatch operation that went bad?

Sounds like a clusterf*ck run by imbeciles.

That would be the CIA for you.

 

[glenn1]

Even more reason why Dubya and Obama (and the voters who enabled them) deserve to be marked as some as the lowest rated Presidents ever for unleashing the NSA and creating the modern day Big Brother state. Congrats for being fucking pussies so afraid of the big bad Muslim terrorists that you demanded the government "protect you" by any means necessary including ushering in the complete loss of any privacy you may have enjoyed previously. "But if I did nothing wrong I have nothing to hide" indeed. And now some of the same folks want the government to "protect" them the same way from evil people with guns, as if the feds are going to do a fucking thing to keep you safer even if you got your precious ban.

 

[UNCjigga]

Even more reason why Dubya and Obama (and the voters who enabled them) deserve to be marked as some as the lowest rated Presidents ever for unleashing the NSA and creating the modern day Big Brother state. Congrats for being fucking pussies so afraid of the big bad Muslim terrorists that you demanded the government "protect you" by any means necessary including ushering in the complete loss of any privacy you may have enjoyed previously. "But if I did nothing wrong I have nothing to hide" indeed. And now some of the same folks want the government to "protect" them the same way from evil people with guns, as if the feds are going to do a fucking thing to keep you safer even if you got your precious ban.

What action did Obama specifically take to grant or enhance the NSA's surveillance powers? I do recall he renewed the Patriot Act pre-Snowden, which passed with bi-partisan support. After Snowden's revelations were made public, he passed the Freedom Act which moved NSA data storage back to phone companies and added some protections to the FISA courts--the only one in Congress asking for more civil protection at the time was Rand Paul.

Neocon Republicans invented the Deep State with the original Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps, bypassing CALEA. They get to own that one.

 

[Puffnstuff]

What action did Obama specifically take to grant or enhance the NSA's surveillance powers? I do recall he renewed the Patriot Act pre-Snowden, which passed with bi-partisan support. After Snowden's revelations were made public, he passed the Freedom Act which moved NSA data storage back to phone companies and added some protections to the FISA courts--the only one in Congress asking for more civil protection at the time was Rand Paul.

Neocon Republicans invented the Deep State with the original Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps, bypassing CALEA. They get to own that one.

The NSA didn't build that monster facility in Utah to collect our memes and user icons did they? DHS building threat fusion centers in population dense areas is not an accident either. I'd bet that the level of surveillance being used on each and every one of us this very instant would shock the likes of George Orwell.

 

[realibrad]

What action did Obama specifically take to grant or enhance the NSA's surveillance powers? I do recall he renewed the Patriot Act pre-Snowden, which passed with bi-partisan support. After Snowden's revelations were made public, he passed the Freedom Act which moved NSA data storage back to phone companies and added some protections to the FISA courts--the only one in Congress asking for more civil protection at the time was Rand Paul.

Neocon Republicans invented the Deep State with the original Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps, bypassing CALEA. They get to own that one.

Is this a joke? You are on a tech forum and you don't know what Obama presided over? Edward Snowden ring a bell?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964

Hell, they were breaking the law even.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9ddc7417125_story.html?utm_term=.95df167faaf1

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

 

[Thebobo]

Yea I remember this was all over the news. Just kinda faded like some many of other important news does.

 

[realibrad]

The NSA didn't build that monster facility in Utah to collect our memes and user icons did they? DHS building threat fusion centers in population dense areas is not an accident either. I'd bet that the level of surveillance being used on each and every one of us this very instant would shock the likes of George Orwell.

Bingo!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

The data center is alleged to be able to process "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all types of personal data trails — parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter'."

 

[UNCjigga]

Is this a joke? You are on a tech forum and you don't know what Obama presided over? Edward Snowden ring a bell?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964

Hell, they were breaking the law even.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9ddc7417125_story.html?utm_term=.95df167faaf1

And what exactly did Obama have to do with the NSA in 2008??

 

[UNCjigga]

And what exactly did Obama have to do with the NSA in 2008??

Edit: Just looked at the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 again...Obama actually did vote for it despite most Democrats voting against it in the Senate. But it passed 69-28... Obama's vote was statistically insignificant but he did buck the party. Still, my point stands. GWB and neocons started warrantless wiretaps after 9/11 and relaxed FISA Court oversight in 2008, which directly led to PRISM.

 

[fskimospy]

Have you folks seen this? Due perhaps to my drastic reduction in news consumption once the 2016 Presidential election resolved into Cheeto Jesus v. the Hildabeast, this wasn't at all on my radar. Apparently someone calling themselves the Shadow Brokers either infiltrated the NSA or hacked the NSA and stole not only their highest secret hacking tools, but also their cyber weapons, and we STILL aren't even sure if it was a hack or an inside job. Apparently we're fighting a shadow war - and losing - and we're not even sure with whom we are fighting. The theft or hack was apparently in 2013 (latest date of the tools which have surfaced) but did not start surfacing until 2015, and it's unclear what relationship (if any) exists to Snowden and/or the CIA's two high profile data breaches. And to make it worse, many of the cyber attacks suffered by American and Western allies since 2015, including ransomware, have been using the NSA's own tools.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html

And just to add a note of pure humor, last September the Deep State spies apparently paid a Russian a $100,000 advance on a $1,000,000 payment for "compromising material on President Trump" which turned out to be "unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data." Supposedly this was an attempt to recover the NSA's stolen hacking tools (which the NSA apparently believes cannot be copied and are cleverly disguised as a silent video of a man in a hotel room talking with two women) which only coincidentally included supposed "compromising material on President Trump" that turned out to be an unidentifiable man engaging in purely pedestrian activity. Because when an organization is completely embarrassed and shown up as incompetent, the natural way to recover is to launch a laughably stupid operation which fails and then offer up an impossibly stupid explanation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/...eakingNews&contentID=66496551&pgtype=Homepage

Now you know.

Uhmmm, the article makes it pretty clear the intent was to know what tools were in the hands of people outside the NSA, not that they somehow thought this was the only copy and that they could buy it back.

I mean shouldn’t it set off alarm bells in your head if your conclusion is that the most sophisticated hacking agency on the planet doesn’t know data can be copied? Doesn’t that probably mean what you thought is stupid?

 

[Jhhnn]

Supposedly this was an attempt to recover the NSA's stolen hacking tools (which the NSA apparently believes cannot be copied and are cleverly disguised as a silent video of a man in a hotel room talking with two women) which only coincidentally included supposed "compromising material on President Trump" that turned out to be an unidentifiable man engaging in purely pedestrian activity

That's some bullshit spin right there. The use of the term "recover" in the original article is inaccurate & in no way supports the notion that the NSA thinks the tools can't be copied.

It seems fairly obvious that the NSA can't determine the extent of the breach so whatever accurate information they can obtain helps them determine that. If they have tools A-Z & their Russian contact gives them back tools A- L they know it's at least that bad & probably worse. They'll take whatever information the Russian throws in with it, too, if they can get that. It's worth $1M.

 

[realibrad]

Edit: Just looked at the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 again...Obama actually did vote for it despite most Democrats voting against it in the Senate. But it passed 69-28... Obama's vote was statistically insignificant but he did buck the party. Still, my point stands. GWB and neocons started warrantless wiretaps after 9/11 and relaxed FISA Court oversight in 2008, which directly led to PRISM.

You misunderstand. Yes, Obama voted to start it up, but he used it. Not only was it used, but it was used illegally. I said "presided" because if he voted for it, but did not use it that would be different. What Obama did was vote for the most intrusive thing ever, then used it to spy on anyone and everyone they wanted. They gave themselves the tool to see everything that is digital.

So when you ask something as ignorant as "What action did Obama specifically take to grant or enhance the NSA's surveillance powers?" then the answer is not only did he vote to create it, but he actively used it and his administration used it in ways that were illegal setting a precedent which Trump can now use. Obama may have been an overall good president, but he fucked this one thing up badly.

 

[fskimospy]

You misunderstand. Yes, Obama voted to start it up, but he used it. Not only was it used, but it was used illegally. I said "presided" because if he voted for it, but did not use it that would be different. What Obama did was vote for the most intrusive thing ever, then used it to spy on anyone and everyone they wanted. They gave themselves the tool to see everything that is digital.

So when you ask something as ignorant as "What action did Obama specifically take to grant or enhance the NSA's surveillance powers?" then the answer is not only did he vote to create it, but he actively used it and his administration used it in ways that were illegal setting a precedent which Trump can now use. Obama may have been an overall good president, but he fucked this one thing up badly.

Where are you getting the idea it was used illegally? The sort of warrantless wiretapping we're talking about here is horrible from a civil liberties standpoint but I'm unaware of any rulings that it was illegal.

 

[realibrad]

Where are you getting the idea it was used illegally? The sort of warrantless wiretapping we're talking about here is horrible from a civil liberties standpoint but I'm unaware of any rulings that it was illegal.

Just a few posts up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9ddc7417125_story.html?utm_term=.5f079dbe7dee

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.


James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has acknowledged that the court found the NSA in breach of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Obama administration has fought a Freedom of Information lawsuit that seeks the opinion.

Rules and laws broken, and Obama's administration fought the release of what the court's opinion was.

 

[fskimospy]

Just a few posts up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9ddc7417125_story.html?utm_term=.5f079dbe7dee

Rules and laws broken, and Obama's administration fought the release of what the court's opinion was.

Ahh I see the misunderstanding here. If you actually read the article those infractions come from operator error, cell phone roaming, typos, and employees not following procedure. While those are definitely violations, they are also the type of violations that have certainly happened every year in both large police forces and for every intelligence agency that exists. Saying that agency employee errors set precedent for Trump to follow is ridiculous nonsense. If you're looking for precedent you would need orders from Obama or some other high ranking official to undertake actions that they knew to be violations and/or procedures that deliberately and recklessly disregarded whether or not it was illegal. There's no indication of that.

You will rarely find a person who is more against the sort of warrantless wiretapping we have been engaging in over the last 15 years or so but this sort of hysteria where employee errors somehow unleashes legal precedent for Trump to abuse his powers is wrongheaded and counterproductive.

 

[realibrad]

[

Ahh I see the misunderstanding here. If you actually read the article those infractions come from operator error, cell phone roaming, typos, and employees not following procedure.

Incorrect, and you should read the links in the article.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pa...irst-quarter-of-2012/395/#document/p5/a115762

Inadvertent collection
"Inadvertent" is a term the NSA uses when someone is deliberately targeted for surveillance and the agency learns afterward that the target was a U.S. citizen, resident or Foreigner who was on U.S. territory at the time of collection.

So thus the article says...

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

The causes and severity of NSA infractions vary widely. One in 10 incidents is attributed to a typographical error in which an analyst enters an incorrect query and retrieves data about U.S phone calls or e-mails.

But the more serious lapses include unauthorized access to intercepted communications, the distribution of protected content and the use of automated systems without built-in safeguards to prevent unlawful surveillance.

And then it also said this.

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

You really should read these things before commenting so you don't look like you rushed your comment.

While those are definitely violations, they are also the type of violations that have certainly happened every year in both large police forces and for every intelligence agency that exists. Saying that agency employee errors set precedent for Trump to follow is ridiculous nonsense. If you're looking for precedent you would need orders from Obama or some other high ranking official to undertake actions that they knew to be violations and/or procedures that deliberately and recklessly disregarded whether or not it was illegal. There's no indication of that.

That I could have said better. When I used precedent I meant the used it actively and broadly. I could have split the sentence about it being illegal.

You will rarely find a person who is more against the sort of warrantless wiretapping we have been engaging in over the last 15 years or so but this sort of hysteria where employee errors somehow unleashes legal precedent for Trump to abuse his powers is wrongheaded and counterproductive.

Hysteria? Dude shut it. The government gave itself the ability to see and monitor everything online. It was clearly beyond employee errors and the fact that you think that shows you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

I'm going to post this part again for you.

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

 

[fskimospy]

Incorrect, and you should read the links in the article.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pa...irst-quarter-of-2012/395/#document/p5/a115762

I did read the article and associated links. In fact I had read that years ago when it first came out, and I'm pretty sure it's been discussed on here before.

As for the NSA, of course it is deliberate at the time, but it is for the reasons I already mentioned. When an employee applies standards incorrectly their collection is 'deliberate' but it is due to an error on their part.

So thus the article says...

And then it also said this.

You really should read these things before commenting so you don't look like you rushed your comment.

Agencies undertake actions in the moment that are later ruled unconstitutional reasonably frequently. This is not in and of itself a problem. The problem would be if they continued to act after the courts told them to stop or if they took that action knowing it would be later found unconstitutional. There is no evidence they did so. The idea that the NSA acting in a way the courts ruled against in the future and then stopping when ordered to provides some 'precedent' for Trump to go hog wild is the exact opposite of what a rational and informed person would take from this. It is the rule of law.

As usual you appear to have come to your position based on little to no understanding of the issue and I'm sure you will adamantly defend this position until the death.

That I could have said better. When I used precedent I meant the used it actively and broadly. I could have split the sentence about it being illegal.

If the precedent is using the powers available to them then that precedent was set a long time ago. Yes though, you should have phrased it better because the phrasing you used was hysterical nonsense.

Hysteria? Dude shut it. The government gave itself the ability to see and monitor everything online. It was clearly beyond employee errors and the fact that you think that shows you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

I quoted the exact reasons given by your article. If you have a problem with that you should take it up with the Washington Post and you probably shouldn't use it as a source anymore.

I'm going to post this part again for you.

Right. You realize that sort of thing happens with local police departments too, right?

Anyways, this is my last response to you on this as I mainly just wanted to correct a number of basic errors that were being made. I have no interest in getting into another protracted debate with you.

 

[zinfamous]

I recall some months (year?) ago when this was an actual news blurb, but not much follow up on it. Good thing we have all the important things to distract us from this kind of news on a daily basis.

This registered with me because I thought it was funny that obvious video game nerds would take an obvious video game reference as the handle for their elite hacking superteam, or whatever they are.

 

[realibrad]

I did read the article and associated links. In fact I had read that years ago when it first came out, and I'm pretty sure it's been discussed on here before.

Oh, so you just knowingly lied then. Why else would you say there was only infractions from mistakes and totally ignore that the court ruled some of what they were doing on purpose was not legal. If you read it, and you remembered it, then why say something that you knew was wrong? nts.

As for the NSA, of course it is deliberate at the time, but it is for the reasons I already mentioned. When an employee applies standards incorrectly their collection is 'deliberate' but it is due to an error on their part.

No, as was clearly explained in the article, people were being watched and then later discovered to be U.S. citizens and or on U.S. soil. As you said you read the article I must also assume you are again lying.

Agencies undertake actions in the moment that are later ruled unconstitutional reasonably frequently. This is not in and of itself a problem. The problem would be if they continued to act after the courts told them to stop or if they took that action knowing it would be later found unconstitutional. There is no evidence they did so. The idea that the NSA acting in a way the courts ruled against in the future and then stopping when ordered to provides some 'precedent' for Trump to go hog wild is the exact opposite of what a rational and informed person would take from this. It is the rule of law.

Again, I explained this. The precedent was that Obama expanded and used regularly power to spy on Americans. This is empirical fact. You want to twist this, and I have no doubt you will continue. You have already been shown to be wrong, and I'm sure you will continue.

As usual you appear to have come to your position based on little to no understanding of the issue and I'm sure you will adamantly defend this position until the death.

Yeah, facts are facts. Obama presided over a large expansion of the governments ability to spy on the world. How crazy of a statement when its backed up by facts. So strange.

If the precedent is using the powers available to them then that precedent was set a long time ago. Yes though, you should have phrased it better because the phrasing you used was hysterical nonsense.

This is stupid. The precedent is new because its something the government has never done before. Having access to information that it did not have access to before is new. Strange you would argue against this. And stop with this hysterical nonsense bullshit. Grasp at straws all you want. Obama did preside over the largest expansion of digital government surveillance.

I quoted the exact reasons given by your article. If you have a problem with that you should take it up with the Washington Post and you probably shouldn't use it as a source anymore.

So your move here is to say the article did not say what it did in fact explicitly say. Weird argument.

Right. You realize that sort of thing happens with local police departments too, right?

Yeah, and when they do that it too is an attempt to expand their abilities. So when I say Obama presided over the expansion of government surveillance, your response is police do it too. Brilliant!

Anyways, this is my last response to you on this as I mainly just wanted to correct a number of basic errors that were being made. I have no interest in getting into another protracted debate with you.

Oh, I'm sure you have no problem saying a bunch of shit that is objectively wrong and then not wanting to go further. Obama did preside over a massive expansion of government surveillance. The person asked "What action did Obama specifically take to grant or enhance the NSA's surveillance powers?" and I provided an answer. The court literally told them they were going too far. So you jam yourself into this and spread your bullshit around then leave. Amazing.

 

[fskimospy]

Sadly, our previous discussions have shown that you're not able to engage in a productive discussion so I'm not going to waste my time. Feel free to call me a liar or whatever else all you want, haha.