4 ms·

The NSA has lost all credibility, as far as I am concerned.

by jlgaddis 9y ago

jszymborski 9y ago
I mean, at least find another whipping boy... this DPRK attribution is getting old hat
- threeseed 9y ago
  I wasn't aware of North Korea generally being blamed for cyberattacks. It sure does fit with them needing foreign currency in the wake of the collapse of the Kaesong project and a freezing of relations with ASEAN countries.
- openasocket 9y ago
  I assume you're referring to the Sony hacks? The evidence is pretty damning: https://www.operationblockbuster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Operation-Blockbuster-Report.pdf https://www.operationblockbuster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016... which I linked elsewhere. Any aspect of that report you want to contest?
  - jszymborski 9y ago
    I'm liable to believe The Grugq, Marc Rogers and Peter Singer [0]. I've never heard of novetta before, and have no particular reason to doubt them, but I will say that this looks more like promotional material than anything else. [0] http://gawker.com/a-lot-of-smart-people-think-north-korea-didnt-hack-sony-1672899940 http://gawker.com/a-lot-of-smart-people-think-north-korea-di...
    - openasocket 9y ago
      Why go on people's word when the evidence is right there! There were public keys used for encryption in the Sony hacks that were reused from other attacks years before. Also, Operation Blockbuster was a joint action, taken on by Novetta, Kaspersky Lab, Symantec, and others
benwilber0 9y ago
> The NSA is not credible. - Somewhat technical internet user
- sumedh 9y ago
  well the NSA chief lied to US congress. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Well that's it then, one lie ends everything. I had a program crash on me once, never used it again. I'm being flippant but while I wouldn't advise you to trust the NSA it's equally foolish to assume an antagonistic posture towards it forever more in everything. Military forces sometimes kill innocent people which is terrible, and even worse than lying, but you don't see any country deciding not to have one, for reasons that I hope are obvious. We live in a very imperfect world and it's not obvious how to rid ourselves of war, militarism, greed and so on because of the perverse economic incentives that prevail at this time in history. So I feel we should be very skeptical of our institutions, but not to the point of perversity or reflexive rejection thereof, which would make us as easy to manipulate as reflexive approval.
    - abecedarius 9y ago
      When a known liar says X, it means they've calculated that saying X is a good move in whatever game they're playing. This tells us little about whether X is the case. I mean, if they've since made a credible effort to restore their reputation somehow, we may start to give their pronouncements some direct weight in our own models of the world, but until then, why would you? This is beside any matter of morality.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Because it would be irrational to assume that they lie all the time. You are right that they've calculated it to be a good move, but good moves are not universally applicable. You should definitely give lower weight to the statements of an actor with a record of being untruthful - we could get into discussing how Clapper is no longer at the NSA and that equating the NSA with his statements to Congress is a fallacy of composition, but let's go with the idea that the NSA as an institution is rather untrustworthy. What I'm arguing against is reflexively reducing that weight to zero, which I claim is irrational. Morality is something that is important in decision-making, but extremely distracting in analysis, so I ignore it when trying to figure out what people are doing or whether they're truthful.
threeseed 9y ago
And this is based on what, exactly ? If you're going to make hyperbolic statements maybe some clarifications would be useful.
- clouddrover 9y ago
  > And this is based on what, exactly ? The NSA developed the exploits that WannaCry was based on. The NSA lost control of its weapon (EternalBlue) in the Shadow Brokers leak and the world suffered economic damage as a consequence. The NSA doesn't seem interested in switching to a more defensive role where they will inform software makers of the security problems they find. Instead they seem intent on maintaining offensive capability by seeking out, cataloging, exploiting, weaponizing, and keeping silent about the software security flaws they discover.
  - jonnybgood 9y ago
    To be fair, the NSA was never given the mission to take on that defensive role you state. Their mission includes the defense of classified systems. Defense of any other systems is not their responsibility. The offensive capability you state is part of their mission and is what NSA was created for.
    - clouddrover 9y ago
      > The NSA was never given the mission to take on that defensive role you state. It's both. James Clapper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper), former director of national intelligence, says the NSA has a review process to decide whether or not to disclose vulnerabilities to software vendors. Nothing in their mission prevents them from doing it. They're choosing not to do it. Look at the slogan on the NSA's website (https://www.nsa.gov/ https://www.nsa.gov/): "Defending our Nation. Securing the Future". It's difficult to say with a straight face that they are defending the nation when they are willingly leaving domestic networks open to attack from zero days. The NSA says (https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/ https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/) national decision makers "Must be able to outmaneuver those who would do us harm in cyberspace." How are you outmaneuvering anyone when you allow systems to remain open to harm?

The NSA has lost all credibility, as far as I am concerned.

jszymborski 9y ago

I mean, at least find another whipping boy... this DPRK attribution is getting old hat

threeseed 9y ago
I wasn't aware of North Korea generally being blamed for cyberattacks. It sure does fit with them needing foreign currency in the wake of the collapse of the Kaesong project and a freezing of relations with ASEAN countries.
openasocket 9y ago
I assume you're referring to the Sony hacks? The evidence is pretty damning: https://www.operationblockbuster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Operation-Blockbuster-Report.pdf https://www.operationblockbuster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016... which I linked elsewhere. Any aspect of that report you want to contest?
- jszymborski 9y ago
  I'm liable to believe The Grugq, Marc Rogers and Peter Singer [0]. I've never heard of novetta before, and have no particular reason to doubt them, but I will say that this looks more like promotional material than anything else. [0] http://gawker.com/a-lot-of-smart-people-think-north-korea-didnt-hack-sony-1672899940 http://gawker.com/a-lot-of-smart-people-think-north-korea-di...
  - openasocket 9y ago
    Why go on people's word when the evidence is right there! There were public keys used for encryption in the Sony hacks that were reused from other attacks years before. Also, Operation Blockbuster was a joint action, taken on by Novetta, Kaspersky Lab, Symantec, and others

benwilber0 9y ago

> The NSA is not credible. - Somewhat technical internet user

sumedh 9y ago
well the NSA chief lied to US congress. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Well that's it then, one lie ends everything. I had a program crash on me once, never used it again. I'm being flippant but while I wouldn't advise you to trust the NSA it's equally foolish to assume an antagonistic posture towards it forever more in everything. Military forces sometimes kill innocent people which is terrible, and even worse than lying, but you don't see any country deciding not to have one, for reasons that I hope are obvious. We live in a very imperfect world and it's not obvious how to rid ourselves of war, militarism, greed and so on because of the perverse economic incentives that prevail at this time in history. So I feel we should be very skeptical of our institutions, but not to the point of perversity or reflexive rejection thereof, which would make us as easy to manipulate as reflexive approval.
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    When a known liar says X, it means they've calculated that saying X is a good move in whatever game they're playing. This tells us little about whether X is the case. I mean, if they've since made a credible effort to restore their reputation somehow, we may start to give their pronouncements some direct weight in our own models of the world, but until then, why would you? This is beside any matter of morality.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Because it would be irrational to assume that they lie all the time. You are right that they've calculated it to be a good move, but good moves are not universally applicable. You should definitely give lower weight to the statements of an actor with a record of being untruthful - we could get into discussing how Clapper is no longer at the NSA and that equating the NSA with his statements to Congress is a fallacy of composition, but let's go with the idea that the NSA as an institution is rather untrustworthy. What I'm arguing against is reflexively reducing that weight to zero, which I claim is irrational. Morality is something that is important in decision-making, but extremely distracting in analysis, so I ignore it when trying to figure out what people are doing or whether they're truthful.

threeseed 9y ago

And this is based on what, exactly ? If you're going to make hyperbolic statements maybe some clarifications would be useful.

clouddrover 9y ago
> And this is based on what, exactly ? The NSA developed the exploits that WannaCry was based on. The NSA lost control of its weapon (EternalBlue) in the Shadow Brokers leak and the world suffered economic damage as a consequence. The NSA doesn't seem interested in switching to a more defensive role where they will inform software makers of the security problems they find. Instead they seem intent on maintaining offensive capability by seeking out, cataloging, exploiting, weaponizing, and keeping silent about the software security flaws they discover.
- jonnybgood 9y ago
  To be fair, the NSA was never given the mission to take on that defensive role you state. Their mission includes the defense of classified systems. Defense of any other systems is not their responsibility. The offensive capability you state is part of their mission and is what NSA was created for.
  - clouddrover 9y ago
    > The NSA was never given the mission to take on that defensive role you state. It's both. James Clapper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper), former director of national intelligence, says the NSA has a review process to decide whether or not to disclose vulnerabilities to software vendors. Nothing in their mission prevents them from doing it. They're choosing not to do it. Look at the slogan on the NSA's website (https://www.nsa.gov/ https://www.nsa.gov/): "Defending our Nation. Securing the Future". It's difficult to say with a straight face that they are defending the nation when they are willingly leaving domestic networks open to attack from zero days. The NSA says (https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/ https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/) national decision makers "Must be able to outmaneuver those who would do us harm in cyberspace." How are you outmaneuvering anyone when you allow systems to remain open to harm?