4 ms·

As with every headline that poses a yes/no question, the answer is usually "no". EDIT: I'm also unsure what the point of shifting the focus onto The Intercept'

by ahoy 9y ago

As with every headline that poses a yes/no question, the answer is usually "no". EDIT: I'm also unsure what the point of shifting the focus onto The Intercept's alleged "mishandling" of the leaker's identity is. It seems like a smear job meant to discredit a publication that the natsec community and mainstream media like WaPo dislike. It also removes the focus from the substance of the leaks and puts it on the "character" of the publication.

thefalcon 9y ago
Except it sure seems like in this case, yeah, they bungled it. At the very least a total lack of awareness or care towards infosec to help protect sources (regardless of the fact that the lack of awareness extends to the source - I'd want a journalist to be better at this than I am if I were leaking information). [ The article doesn't mention this, but I wouldn't be surprised if these microdots, rather than "a crease" were the smoking gun: https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/871883733032415236 https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/871883733032415236 ]
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  The search warrant says that the internal audit and (logged-in?) gmail account were the smoking gun. Page 11, paragraphs 14-16: https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f473l3r/show_temp%20%2866%29.pdf https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f47... > 14. The U.S. Government Agency [NSA] examined the document shared by the News Outlet [The Intercept] and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space. > 15. The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. These six individuals included WINNER. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. > 16. The U.S. Government Agency determined that WINNER had e-mail communication with the News Outlet on or about March 30, 2017, and March 31, 2017. The first e-mail was from WINNER, using e-mail address [redacted].fitness@gmail.com, to the News Outlet. In it, WINNER appeared to request transcripts of a podcast. The second e-mail was from the News Outlet to [redacted].fitness@gmail.com and confirmed WINNER'S subscription to the service. The [redacted].fitness@gmail.com account is a personal e-mail account not sponsored by or affiliated with the U.S. Government Agency. Whether the 'crease' noticed by the NSA in paragraph 14 was actually creases or an internal code for microdots, if The Intercept was going to use this report there's nothing they could have done to protect this reckless source.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    Rather revealing that the "Agency" was privy not only to the e-mail metadata but also the contents. Watching outbound SMTP from Gmail or just MiTM internal agency traffic?
    - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
      Or just logged into Gmail on her work computer?
    - mjcl 9y ago
      Could be an ordinary search warrant. Supposedly the Intercept also told the govt. that the document was mailed with an Augusta postmark. The postmark + being the only person to print the document in that city seems like reasonable basis for a search warrant, but I'm not a lawyer.
- chakalakasp 9y ago
  I agree the microdots thing was sloppy. At least degrade the image of the page, or better yet retype the thing before sending it on. However, being one of the few people who printed it off from work was pretty stupid and would have boned her anyway. At some point in her brain she should have reflected that she was going up against the NSA and stealing their top secret intel and that maybe just maybe the system kept track of who printed out the Top Secret stuff the POTUS's attorneys are sweating bullets over. That said, if the dude gets impeached she will probably eventually be pardoned.
- oasisbob 9y ago
  Whoa - sure enough, there they are. The microdots seem to be the usual xerox-style microdots, and decode properly: Printer serial number: 535218 [or 29535218] Date: May 9, 2017 Time: 06:20
  - jpindar 9y ago
    If anyone is interested in seeing for themselves how this information is encoded, read this. http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-reality-winner.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-realit...
ceejayoz 9y ago
It seems clear they should've redacted the printer microdots - they're a known concern. It sounds like their source was caught in other ways, but that's not an excuse.
sambe 9y ago
Are you saying that, having read the article, you think the answer is no? If so, having read the article, would you trust The Intercept to deal with a hypothetical leak by yourself? Or are you saying "I didn't read the article, but the answer is usually no"?
- problems 9y ago
  It's a common adage, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
austenallred 9y ago
I'm not sure how you can arrive at "no" here. Regardless of how you feel about the politics involved, if you publish information that outs a source you've "bungled" it almost by definition.

by ahoy 9y ago

thefalcon 9y ago

Except it sure seems like in this case, yeah, they bungled it. At the very least a total lack of awareness or care towards infosec to help protect sources (regardless of the fact that the lack of awareness extends to the source - I'd want a journalist to be better at this than I am if I were leaking information). [ The article doesn't mention this, but I wouldn't be surprised if these microdots, rather than "a crease" were the smoking gun: https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/871883733032415236 https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/871883733032415236 ]

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
The search warrant says that the internal audit and (logged-in?) gmail account were the smoking gun. Page 11, paragraphs 14-16: https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f473l3r/show_temp%20%2866%29.pdf https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1k2I053M3J2z0f47... > 14. The U.S. Government Agency [NSA] examined the document shared by the News Outlet [The Intercept] and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space. > 15. The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. These six individuals included WINNER. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. > 16. The U.S. Government Agency determined that WINNER had e-mail communication with the News Outlet on or about March 30, 2017, and March 31, 2017. The first e-mail was from WINNER, using e-mail address [redacted].fitness@gmail.com, to the News Outlet. In it, WINNER appeared to request transcripts of a podcast. The second e-mail was from the News Outlet to [redacted].fitness@gmail.com and confirmed WINNER'S subscription to the service. The [redacted].fitness@gmail.com account is a personal e-mail account not sponsored by or affiliated with the U.S. Government Agency. Whether the 'crease' noticed by the NSA in paragraph 14 was actually creases or an internal code for microdots, if The Intercept was going to use this report there's nothing they could have done to protect this reckless source.
- dingaling 9y ago
  Rather revealing that the "Agency" was privy not only to the e-mail metadata but also the contents. Watching outbound SMTP from Gmail or just MiTM internal agency traffic?
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    Or just logged into Gmail on her work computer?
  - mjcl 9y ago
    Could be an ordinary search warrant. Supposedly the Intercept also told the govt. that the document was mailed with an Augusta postmark. The postmark + being the only person to print the document in that city seems like reasonable basis for a search warrant, but I'm not a lawyer.
chakalakasp 9y ago
I agree the microdots thing was sloppy. At least degrade the image of the page, or better yet retype the thing before sending it on. However, being one of the few people who printed it off from work was pretty stupid and would have boned her anyway. At some point in her brain she should have reflected that she was going up against the NSA and stealing their top secret intel and that maybe just maybe the system kept track of who printed out the Top Secret stuff the POTUS's attorneys are sweating bullets over. That said, if the dude gets impeached she will probably eventually be pardoned.
oasisbob 9y ago
Whoa - sure enough, there they are. The microdots seem to be the usual xerox-style microdots, and decode properly: Printer serial number: 535218 [or 29535218] Date: May 9, 2017 Time: 06:20
- jpindar 9y ago
  If anyone is interested in seeing for themselves how this information is encoded, read this. http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-reality-winner.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/how-intercept-outed-realit...

ceejayoz 9y ago

It seems clear they should've redacted the printer microdots - they're a known concern. It sounds like their source was caught in other ways, but that's not an excuse.

sambe 9y ago

Are you saying that, having read the article, you think the answer is no? If so, having read the article, would you trust The Intercept to deal with a hypothetical leak by yourself? Or are you saying "I didn't read the article, but the answer is usually no"?

problems 9y ago
It's a common adage, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

austenallred 9y ago

I'm not sure how you can arrive at "no" here. Regardless of how you feel about the politics involved, if you publish information that outs a source you've "bungled" it almost by definition.