Confirmed: CBS News Reporter's Computer Compromised 176
New submitter RoccamOccam writes "Shortly after the news broke that the Department of Justice had been secretly monitoring the phones and email accounts of Associated Press and Fox News reporters (and the parents of Fox News Correspondent James Rosen), CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson said her computer seemed like it had been compromised. Turns out, it was. 'A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson's computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson's accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.'"
Oddly specific denial (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is the justice department denial so specific:
To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never compromised Ms. Attkisson’s computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer, or other media device she may own or use.
It sounds like a carefully worded statement that leaves open the possibility that they planted an old fashioned bug to listen to her in her home, or a GPS tracker on her car, or secretly searched her house, or one of the other many ways they can secretly keep someone under surveillance.
Why not a simple "We have never had Ms Attkisson under any surveillance or covertly obtained any information about her"?
Besides, if she used a Verizon Business cell phone, or if the same cell phone meta-data order that was leaked to the press was given to all of the carriers, then the government *did* seek information concerning telephones used by her.
What data? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Better security might help (Score:4, Interesting)
Please excuse my sceptism. I just googled the topic and it seems there's some evidence they've been doing this along with contributing to PRISM. Very enlightening to say the least!
Re:Better security might help (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no need to insert vulnerabilities into Linux. The Linux kernel is riddled with vulnerabilities.
If you've ever wondered to yourself, "how the heck do those Linux developers commit such huge changes between minor versions without introducing bugs", well I have some news for you....
If you want to run a secure system, try OpenBSD or NetBSD. Development occurs at a slower, more conservative pace, particularly with OpenBSD. And there are virtually none of the "dump and run" feature submissions that are so common with Linux.
The application and server software you run should be developed similarly--slow and conservative, with a large number of the developers having a good comprehension of all or most of the subsystems, so that they can readily critique changes instead of deferring to the single guy who, alone, understands that subsystem.
Remember, it's all about the eyeballs. But not all eyeballs are created equally, and not all projects make the most efficient use of the eyeballs available to them. Linux long ago past the point where bugs were spotted and quashed efficiently.
Re: Welcome to the Botnet (Score:3, Interesting)
Total coincidence that she was the only non-Fox reporter looking into Fast & Furious gun running scandal, and this happened right around when that was heating up.
Obama's people wanted to know if they'd been caught.
Re:Better security might help (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't the operating systems. Too many people pay attention to them. The secret code is in the compilers (where all the NSA fake employees work). It works this way: the compiler itself was compiled by the NSA to add secret code to the compiler source. This way, even if you are compiling from the clean and open source files, you will still get the NSA features. And when the OS is compiled, the NSA features are also added. For all 'hard-copy' operating systems, additional effort is made to ensure that the final copy is compromised. For open source or downloadable operating systems, the NSA runs a program where they swap out bytes at the ISP level while retaining the checksums. I've heard that this program is code named LEYTUNNEL.
Posted via Tor to protect myself and my source
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Interesting)
Think back to the 1960s. Many of the complaints the "radicals" had were in fact legitimate. The Vietnam war was poorly managed and ultimately a colossal waste of lives and resources. Agent Orange really was a horrible toxin, causing permanent injuries. Drafting people to send them to a pointless war really was an evil act (and the draft dodgers were making a decision that in retrospect was a smart one)
Marijuana really was a drug with low potential for harm, black people really were being oppressed, and nudism and free love must have been pretty fun.
The point is, what did mainstream culture have to say then? What did all those protests do to affect the decisions made by The Man? Fuck-all, that's what. Doesn't seem any different now.