NSA: Others Implicated in Making Snowden Data Leaks Possible 118
NBC News reports that "A civilian NSA employee recently resigned after being stripped of his security clearance for allowing former agency contractor Edward Snowden to use his personal log-in credentials to access classified information, according to an agency memo obtained by NBC News. In addition, an active duty member of the U.S. military and a contractor have been barred from accessing National Security Agency facilities after they were 'implicated' in actions that may have aided Snowden, the memo states. Their status is now being reviewed by their employers, the memo says." You can read the memo for yourself.
No hardware access tokens? (Score:5, Interesting)
The NSA, the "experts" in computer security, doesn't use hardware access tokens? Everyone knows that passwords can be compromised (and a PKI certificate adds little since an attacker could copy the cert).
Though I guess since the NSA already hacked RSA, they knew they couldn't trust RSA tokens.
No hardware access tokens? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the type of government organization that hires groups like RATFOR as security consultants.
They outsourced security to a Fortran 66 preprocessor [wikipedia.org]? Well that explains why my Linksys router is currently trying to crack Minuteman silo launch codes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No hardware access tokens? (Score:5, Informative)
HSPD-12 says that since 2006, they are REQUIRED (**SHALL**) to use them.
Doesn't mean they do. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Am I missing something, or are they hiring a Fortran pre-processor as a body of workers?
AKA: We're gonna punish somebody (Score:1)
We can't let folks think that they could get away with this, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
This was my immediate thought too....
Re:AKA: We're gonna punish somebody (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, what laws are you talking about that were broken?
Uh, the 4th amendment? And if they didn't break any laws it represents a defect in the laws more than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically show us what part of the Fourth Amendment they broke. It isn't clear. You're secure in your person, house, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. Fine. What's "unreasonable" in this case (and there are legitimate national security issues involved)? What about observing things you cause to have done outside your house? Are the records of your phone calls and emails, not including content, "papers" or "effects" or something else?
I will agree that the laws are defective
Snowden did not act alone (Score:5, Interesting)
It has been obvious to me for a while that Snowden did not act alone, and that he probably represents a surface manifestation of deep divisions within the intelligence community.
Re:Snowden did not act alone (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that a lot of people in intelligence communities believe they are working for the good side, I have no troubles believing your hypothesis.
Anyway, when a guy leaks about possibly corrupt institutions, and the reaction is on the guy and possible accomplices, don't we have a bigger problem? It means justice is in bed with corrupt institutions.
Re:Snowden did not act alone (Score:4, Informative)
It means justice is in bed with corrupt institutions.
No. It means that justice is dead and the corrupt institutions have a penchant for necrophilia and buggery.
Re:Snowden did not act alone (Score:5, Interesting)
> Given that a lot of people in intelligence communities believe they are working for the good side, I have no troubles believing your hypothesis.
A truckload of people in the security and intelligence communities have issues with domestic surveillance and were against the Patriot Act from the very begining. It's far from a minority opinion.
Re:Snowden did not act alone (Score:5, Interesting)
The Feb. 10 memo was signed by Ethan Bauman, the NSA’s director of legislative affairs. It was sent to the congressional committees after repeated questions from senior members about whether the NSA intended to hold any of its employees accountable for the security lapses that enable Snowden to gain access to massive volumes of classified documents that he later leaked to the news media.
“Has anybody been disciplined at NSA for dropping the ball so badly?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanded of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander at a Dec. 11 hearing. Alexander at the time replied that the agency had three “cases” that “we’re currently reviewing.” (An NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines declined comment Wednesday night, writing in an email: “I don’t have anything for your story.”)
They don't want to stop spying and shitting on personal liberties, they want people held accountable for giving a whistle blower access to data. TFA is of course a piece of government run propaganda^W^W^Wshit, who never does real journalism. They simply repeat the "kill the messenger" message these hearings bring out from the people holding government offices. A real journalist asks real questions, and points out truth that should make people uncomfortable if they are doing something wrong.
Snowden denied claims of "tricking" people or "stealing" long ago. I think the more likely collaboration was people sympathetic to his cause who gave access and pointed at things. This means they are not jailed as being whistle blowers, because.. well there is a history of (especially this administration) punishing whistle blowers.
What does TFA and the message boil down to? Easy, more "kill the whistle blowers" message and more "fuck the citizens" messages. Not one lick of journalism of course, just more repeated propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I got the impression that he did act alone. In his interviews, he stated that he knew if he didn't act, nobody else would.
Re: (Score:2)
Unbeknownst to many in our "Security USA Hell Yeah! Inc." there may be real heroes hidden behind those made in China flag pins.
I wonder - was it social engineering? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder - was it social engineering? (Score:5, Informative)
It has already been revealed he did stuff like that.
But at an agency which is supposed to be secretive and paranoid -- if you have people falling for that, they're really not qualified to be working in that kind of environment.
Every few months my company sends out test emails to check for phishing, people's likelihood to click on spam, or chance of falling for social engineering. If you fail, you get sent to remedial data security training. If you repeatedly fail, they might decide you can't really be trusted around computers.
If the NSA has people who are not aware enough of these things to not do it, then they're doing a piss-poor job of training their people. There really is no excuse for people who have access to Top Secret information falling for this kind of thing -- there should never be a situation in which it makes sense to give your password to IT as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>There is a difference in an agency mission, and the people behind it. If there were not, then I would consider every single executive working for tobacco companies as nothing more than a mass murderer. Perhaps some do, but it's not exactly an accurate or fair label.
I think the better analogy would be considering every single secretary and production-line worker at tobacco companies a murderer. If you are an executive with a significant voice in deciding the policies and actions of the company then I wo
Re: (Score:2)
Even the IT guy when he needs it to fix the problem? I mean come on, you obviously have to give your car keys to the auto mechanic, and you probably care more about your car than some database at work. If you can't trust the guy making everything work, who can you trust? Especially in the heart of the NSA, where even the janitors have had thorough background checks (I would hope).
Obviously if you are fluent in computer security that (somewhat) falls on it's face, but out in the "real world" that most peop
Re: (Score:3)
Read the memo. The user entered it themselves, he just manipulated them into doing so on a machine he controlled (eg keylogger)
Keylogger, not sharing (Score:5, Informative)
“At Snowden’s request,” the civilian NSA employee, who is not identified by name, entered his password onto Snowden’s computer terminal, the memo states.
“Unbeknownst to the civilian, Mr. Snowden was able to capture the password, allowing him even greater access to classified information,” the memo states.
Snowden lied to the other employee in order to steal classified information.
Re:Keylogger, not sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sayign that this is not how snowden got the information, Im just saying I need more proof than the guys who are using unconstitutional secret courts word for it
Re: (Score:2)
Not identified, but not unknown. Since been fired from his job too.
right, because it would be so hard to make such a claim when there is no way to verify right? Let me guess there weer also pink elephants and purple unicorns who were assistants in this theft as well
Unconstitutional in who's opinion? Yours obviously, but that doesn't make it so
The constitution is pretty straight forward, especially the 4th, which is clearly being violated. It is not reasonable, or unreasonable to collect all data on all people. A warrant is supposed to be issued for a specific person/group for a specific item/group of items, that are related to a case. There is no ca
Re: (Score:2)
It's hardly Snowden's fault that his fellow employees were too stupid to follow basic computer security procedures, like not entering their passwords on untrusted systems.
If these are the kinds of people who work for the NSA, wouldn't you want them kicked out of their jobs ASAP?
Re: (Score:1)
It's hardly Snowden's fault that his fellow employees were too stupid to follow basic computer security procedures, like not entering their passwords on untrusted systems.
Untrusted systems? Unless the NSA's policy is that you can only log in on your own machine, presumably other computers at the NSA count as trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden's system was not an NSA-owned computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden worked for the NSA indirectly. He wasn't an NSA employee.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
Snowden has already repeatedly demonstrated that virtually every NSA public communication, including those given under oath to Congress -- were completely, utterly false/fabricated/misleading/specious, bullshit.
These generally weren't little lies/whitewashing/spinning, they were total bullshit.
This has happened repeatedly.
At this point, *ANY* statement from the NSA about how things happened or what happened, should be taken with the same level of confidence we would take from a
YANAL (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what is called speculation, and would be thrown out in court. Snowden claimed long ago he didn't, these people are claiming he did. I trust Snowden a bit more than I trust most of the shitheads we currently have in Government, and could easily find character witnesses who are unbiased to support Snowden.
Keep being distracted by all the hand waives though.
For what it's worth, IANAL either. I am not fooled by the distractions they keep playing against people.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote Snowden for mayor, government, and president! :P
angel snowden (Score:1)
After rain... (Score:1)
....umbrella, as we used to say.
This reminds me of some famous quote that the military is always prepared to win...past battles....
This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
This just in!
Officials are investigating the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which is alleged to have aided Snowden in getting to and from secure facilities!
Re: (Score:2)
And why not? That's pretty much how it works for al Qaeda investigations, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
so there's down to this.... (Score:1)
finding low level scapegoats
Others? I'd start with Clapper (Score:5, Insightful)
> Others Implicated in Making Snowden Data Leaks Possible
Since Snowden mentioned Clapper's lying to Congress got him to release the documents, I'd start by implicating Clapper.
From there it's hard not to implicate the Presidents who didn't honor their pledge to uphold the Constitution. Congress. Decision-makers within the NSA.
Without all of them, there would be nothing for Snowden to release.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm willing to lend a benefit of the doubt to the Presidents and such, but this does not extend to Clapper.
Keylogger + Data Scraper (Score:1)
He used a Key Logger and Data Scraper, nothing complicated. Just goes to show the NSA has no clue regarding secure systems!
3 Z.O.G. 3 (Score:2)
You heard it here first.
All we know for sure... (Score:2)
Ineffective security should not be a surprise... (Score:1)
The government has failed to uphold it's most basic responsibility of upholding the constitution, what makes you all think they are effective in handling computer security? It is in fact ineffective in a lot more ways than that.
Of COURSE he had accomplices (Score:3)
The accomplices were the perps who violated our Constitution. Without them, Snowden would have had nothing to expose.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why in the world would you let someone use YOUR OWN PERSONAL login credentials? Why not just give him a key that you can lock out after he's done his work. I cannot believe that someone was deliberately this stupid
So Snowden social hacked a couple of people into allowing him to use their login credentials. That isn't exactly big news and while I'm not saying it's a particularly smart thing to do I seriously doubt that these people are the only ones in NSA history to share login credentials. The real news is that now that the US authorities can't get Snowden they are going to do the next best thing which is to hang these people out to dry as accomplices. I believe that's a mistake since don't think that the vindictive
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not vindictiveness -- it's procedure. Anyone with a TS-SCI clearance gets the "we'll ruin your life if you screw up" speech when they accept the status. And, given how often you're required to review training on how not to screw up, these people have zero room to complain about any proverbial ton of bricks.
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is. The people looking up their girlfriends info and obviously violating FISA warrants don't get fired. The ones sending information to the FBI with "don't tell anybody we are doing this and make sure to claim your "investigation" started with some other evidence don't get fired.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it isn't. If Snowden wanted to make a point, he would have only released information pertinent to the Fourth Amendment. Instead, he did a data dump that pretty much showed the extent to which the NSA spies on foreigners, which is their fucking job.
If the enabled the latter half of the above sentence, then they're quite burnable.
Re:D'oh! (Score:4, Insightful)
then why the fuck hasn't the people in the NSA who have been targeting American's [namely " The people looking up their girlfriends info" and "obviously violating FISA warrants" and "the ones sending information to the FBI with "don't tell anybody we are doing this and make sure to claim your "investigation" started with some other evidence", which CLEARLY violates the law don't face similar punishments?
Or is it just a pick and choose method of law enforcement.
And don't get me started on the whole "it's an emergency, no need to follow procedure anymore".
Re: (Score:1)
which CLEARLY violates the law don't face similar punishments?
Because it isn't CLEAR that any laws were broken. People around here like to point to some advisory board report that said the activities were probably illegal, but that 5-person board was split 3-2 so you can't say that CLEARLY the activities were illegal. It is CLEAR to you because that is what you believe it to be, but (fortunately) the US legal system isn't beholden to what you specifically believe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
which CLEARLY violates the law don't face similar punishments?
Because it isn't CLEAR that any laws were broken. People around here like to point to some advisory board report that said the activities were probably illegal, but that 5-person board was split 3-2 so you can't say that CLEARLY the activities were illegal. It is CLEAR to you because that is what you believe it to be, but (fortunately) the US legal system isn't beholden to what you specifically believe.
Ah, sorry, but the fourth Amendment is pretty fucking CLEAR. Argue all you want about FISA panels and other such bullshit we've legalized in the last decade to completely fucking derail that Right, but it is VERY fucking CLEAR what laws have been broken and by whom here if you're willing to dilute the issue down to the very basics where it belongs. It's this bullshit dissection of these kinds of violations that allows you and everyone else to not see the fucking elephant in the room CLEAR as day. An "inv
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, it isn't clear. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable search and seizure. What's "reasonable"? People are supposed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Does this protect records of who you've phoned or emailed? The Supreme Court has ruled that similar things are legitimate observation. If an agency collects copies of your papers, without your knowledge, and takes steps to make sure they will not be accessed unreasonably, are you now insecure in your papers?
D
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
unless every single LOVEINT target was not a US citizen, the law was broken [as the NSA isn't permitted by law to spy on US citizens]
and a FISA judge [he should know] said the NSA violated his warrant for YEARS.
How more illegal do you need to get?
Re: (Score:2)
Best practice is to have phone company employees with with wide access to the systems access pass TS (DV in the UK) clearance.
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Informative)
Apart from the fact that I'm glad the leaks happened, it betrays an extraordinary amount of stupidity on the part of those who gave Snowden their credentials and indicates, at least to me, a considerable lack of training.
The company I run has some government contracts dealing with a considerable amount of very personal and detailed information of unemployed and disabled persons. I can tell you right now that we regularly drum into everyone's heads the level of confidentiality we require, that under no circumstances are you to give someone your IDs and passwords, or let them use your workstation while you're logged in. Every access to client information is logged, and information is strictly limited to what is needed by each employee to do their job.
Re:D'oh! (Score:4, Funny)
I can tell you right now that we regularly drum into everyone's heads the level of confidentiality we require, that under no circumstances are you to give someone your IDs and passwords, or let them use your workstation while you're logged in. Every access to client information is logged, and information is strictly limited to what is needed by each employee to do their job.
You should contract work for the NSA. Apparently, they need someone with your expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
There's not much expertise in saying "You will be fired... and worse." We make it very clear that violation of both government privacy rules and company policies could very well invite legal proceedings.
Re: (Score:3)
And I can tell you right now that unless you're a tiny operation, people are doing it anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the same as the case here with the NSA
Re: (Score:2)
This is hilarious. You think there's some company that doesn't say you're fucked if you give out your information? It's just legal boilerplate. That doesn't mean it's enforceable.
The fact that they're restricting access that was easily and openly given out before is just a slow attempt to cover up the barn door which has been left open. It's pretty funny, to be quite honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it probably is enforceable in most cases, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time anyway. If people actually followed corporate policies there would be very little successful social engineering.
My workplace has a sign up that it is against policy to bring a cell phone camera onto the site. Probably every employee from the CEO to the janitor violates this policy.
Re: (Score:2)
When a new employee comes on board and needs their access set up, who does that? When someone needs their access expanded, who handles that? How do you control their access?
From what I understand, that was the problem with Snowden and the credentials he had/obtained access to: they had essentially superuser access over the system. In any system, you need people at the top who can manage it. If those people decide to betray trust, you're SOL.
Re:D'oh! (Score:5, Interesting)
I guarantee you Snowden really did no "social hacking" at all.
If you have EVER been someone who solves people's computer problems (sysadmin, DT support, phone support, etc.) you know that LOTS of people will just flat out tell you their passwords when they contact you. They'll put their passwords on post-its, in e-mails, even in the trouble ticket itself. Or they'll just tell you on the phone or in person. No matter how you try to tell them "I don't want or need that information" they still do it. Upper management and C-levels are the worst about doing this, and their accounts can usually access anything in the organization.
Hell, I don't even do support any more, but people still leave me notes or tell me their passwords if they want me to help them with something IT won't do.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to work for an ISP and *many* customers would call back after we cut off access because we couldn't talk to them would say "But I gave you my login and password already, you asked me by email because you found an incoherence"
(their account were used to send junk mail via the webmail service).
Since people are giving away credentals by *email*, not surprising they would give them out in person.
Re: (Score:2)
The company I work for the IT folks keep a complete list of usernames and passwords in a text file, stored on a machine open to the Internet (including FTP!) which is, itself, is "protected" by those same passwords.
Oh, but it's OK, they told me once: It's in a password-protected zip file, so it's safe.
I'm sure that the unencrypted plaintext is scattered all over the temp directory of every machine they've ever used to view this file.
I'm (very) glad I don't get paid to care about that network anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope that NSA contractors are a little better than your run-of-the-mill company in terms of security.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope that NSA contractors are a little better than your run-of-the-mill company in terms of security.
Hate to break it to you....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The failing startup I was stuck at for a few years eventually hired some expensive ex-NSA security company to spy on us. I won't go into the reasons why, but it was purely political, and an empty gesture to satisfy some of our more vocal/deluded shareholders. You can imagine what it does to morale to have someone being paid at least twice your salary to monitor you, but I digress.
The point is, they went around one day, asked us each for our password(s), and then wrote them down on a legal pad. When it was m
Re: (Score:2)
Just a tip, if a cute person leaves you a sticky note saying, "meetMeAfterWork!"...that might NOT be their password"
Re: (Score:2)
I worked in Gov't IT for 8 years. Employees were constantly drilled about protecting sensitive information.
Same kind of thing happened all the time. Passwords on post-its, in e-mail, etc. People are still people even if they work for the government.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, these people are effed in the butt. Obama can't hang snowmen so he,ll go after this lot instead.
Re: (Score:3)
When access to resources is a difficult or lengthy process, and deadlines for products using those resources don't take that into consideration, then it is easier to hand over your credentials.
If the processes for gaining access were streamlines and efficient, then this wouldn't occur. Since it probably is not streamlines and efficient, this is what you get.