12 ms·

Wikileaks reveals CIA’s ‘Brutal Kangaroo’ toolkit for hacking air-gapped network

140 points by Sami_Lehtinen 9y ago

csomar 9y ago
My understanding of air-gapped network/computer is that it gets no access to Internet/External devices (like a thumb drive in this case). So is accurate to call it "hacking air-gapped network"?
- kazinator 9y ago
  Indeed, A and B are not "gapped" if a thumb drive connects to B, and then later the same thumb drive connects to A. That's the same as being able to send a datagram from B to A over a network. "Air gapped" is an idiotic term to begin with. Radio communication such as Wi-Fi is literally air-gapped. The plates of a capacitor can use air as a dielectric, making them literally air-gapped, yet the cap will pass AC signal, and two adjacent air-gapped inductors can pass signal, as well as power with great efficiency.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    It's a perfectly reasonable term. It's not used for its literal meaning here, but that's fine. We use "network" to describe things that are not literally a net-like arrangement of threads, wires, etc.
  - Shorel 9y ago
    It is not idiotic. It is anachronistic.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- tgragnato 9y ago
  In quite every system you need to exchange data, and the usage of a medium to move data between the trusted host and the untrusted host is _usually reasonable_ and _common practice_ (traditionally you move data from black to red with less restrictions, while the reverse procedure is more rigorous). Making a comparison, I’d say air gapping is to networking what galvanic isolation is to circuits: you don’t have direct contact, but there’s information exchange (be it bytes or em fields). EDIT: I would call a (strictly) isolated computer a tempest-compliant and physically isolated host.
  - zulln 9y ago
    Say you store your private PGP-key on a air-gapped computer. When receiving a sensitive document you put in on a USB-drive, enter it to the air-gapped machine and then physically destroy the USB-drive. The air-gapped machine then directly presents the decryption on a monitor. There definitely exist scenarios where the air-gapped machine to not have to both communicate out and in, but where only in is required.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  As others said, you usually need to move data. So, the typical solution for defense sector was to use high-assurance guards or data diodes. The former are like firewalls with an implementation designed to actually stop state-sponsored hackers rather than fill bank accounts keeping out the least skilled hackers. They do the latter, too, at the prices they charge. The data diodes are devices that allow data to only flow one way. There's at least two, use cases for that depending on which way the data flows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidirectional_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidirectional_network
azinman2 9y ago
And what does the world gain by Wikileaks leaking this for public usage? It will only become more ubiquitous. Microsoft already has patched the vulnerability. When will Russia, China, Israel, Iran, France, North Korea or other countries wares be leaked? Something tells me they wouldn’t even if they got it...
- fit2rule 9y ago
  What is the gain? We civilians no longer have to be victims to our out-of-control governments, who are no longer working to protect us, but rather their corporate interests.
  - mavdi 9y ago
    I have no idea how leaking highly classified cyberwar toolkit helps that cause.
    - tgragnato 9y ago
      I am very interested in knowing if there is an equally efficient alternative.
      - fit2rule 9y ago
        The alternative is a social system designed not to keep secrets, but reveal them.
        shakna 9y ago
        I don't think that is realistically practical. Currently you have several secrets you use to confirm your identity. The idea of the individual would need to be eliminated to remove all secrets.
        kakarot 9y ago
        It's funny you say that. I've had a longstanding conclusion that my true individuality only arises from the secrets I keep. Even if these are benign and even sometimes silly secrets, even if no one would find them interesting, they are the only thing I have that sets me apart from others. This is another reason I feel anxious over creeping mass surveillance and the loss of privacy. It's a direct threat to my individuality.
Software_Sucks 9y ago
We can use this to defeat those evil Russians that are controlling our elections!
- pb8226 9y ago
  America really does have an obsession with Russia. It wasn't just communism.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Probably because they have one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet? Who wouldn’t be concerned? The only reason Russia doesn’t own most of Europe right now is because of that American “obsession.” You think that Russia would have stopped at the Crimea if it weren’t for the heavy US presence in Poland?
    - evook 9y ago
      Yes, you can't compare Crimea with western Europe. Crimea was mostly Russian to begin with.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        Poland, by that argument, as well as swaths of Germany, were arguably once "mostly Russia to begin with". Almost every civilisation can look back into its history and find convenient boundaries.
        insertnickname 9y ago
        The argument is that Crimea is mostly Russian _today_, not just 50, 100, or more years ago. >According to the (2001 census), the ethnic makeup of Crimea's population consists of the following self-reported groups: Russians:1.18 million (58.3%), Ukrainians: 492,200 (24.3%), Crimean Tatars: 243,400 (12.0%) [...] >According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 11.4% – Crimean Tatar, and 10.1% – Ukrainian. >Ukrainian was until 2014 the single official state language countrywide, but in Crimea government business was carried out mainly in Russian. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
belorn 9y ago
With every leak of government produced malware I hope the issue get pushed a bit further onto the political agenda so a international treaty can be reached on software implemented weapons. There need to be some defined limits for what agencies can do and what happens when the weapons sooner or later are discovered and turned into problems like WannaCry. Its clear to most politicians that its a problem if criminals use guns acquired from the military or police, and that its partial the fault of those agencies when it happens. We are not there yet with malware.
- lyle_nel 9y ago
  I don't disagree with you on any particular point. However, who do you suppose we trust to decide what is a software implemented weapon and what is not? Of course there are very clear black and white examples, but the in between is where we should be concerned. Consider the USA stance on export of encryption as a historical example of where it can go terribly wrong.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  What is your proposed test? Detecting a nuclear explosion or traces of chemical-weapons manufacturing is easy compared to figure out who made some malware component.
- mindslight 9y ago
  Your diagnosis is at odds with the basis of open security. The primary thing that needs to happen is an accepting of responsibility by those who administer critical systems. Mathematically, what we call a developed "exploit" is really just an existence proof that something is already insecure (hence "PoC or GTFO"). The blame needs to be properly assigned to the developers/integrators of these systems for negligence (currently gross negligence - eg relying on Turing-complete languages) instead of scapegoating those who discover the emperor has no clothes, even despite their underlying motivations and lack of full disclosure. Nasty exploits have always existed - the worrisome development is the scale of execution brought on by entities with such resources, and the trend of governments becoming overtly adversarial against the people, both their own citizens and foreign individuals. Even if it were practical (see: China's attitude to imaginary property), having these entities form treaties (ie collude) with one another is not going to resolve this. If anything, treaties will form gentleman's agreements between allies, while enshrining the attacking individuals "of interest" as standard procedure.
qubex 9y ago
Tomorrow unwary operatives or turncoats will turn up at work, submit to a surprise frisk-down to find whether they're carrying any USB drives, these will be ceased, and analysed, and found to contain this malware, and they'll be tossed into the deepest dungeons with only a kangaroo court to look forward to.
- qubex 9y ago
  Anybody care to explain why I was downvoted for explaining what the immediate consequences to operatives will be? Or à la Assange would we all rather ignore the risk people are being placed at?
- mcguire 9y ago
  Why would you expect an agent to be carrying one of these things? The typical vector ous some innocent local with poor security hygiene.
gruez 9y ago
Shouldn't the Wikileaks page be linked instead? The original article doesn't add anything and the wl page has more technical details.
- dang 9y ago
  Ok, we changed to that from https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3012499/-wikileaks-cia-uses-brutal-kangaroo-toolkit-to-hack-air-gapped-networks https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3012499/-wikileaks..., which points to it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jancsika 9y ago
Doesn't this require two-way dataflow between the air-gapped computer(s) and the "primary host"? Edit: in other words, you would have to 1) plug a USB drive into the "primary" host and then plug the same drive into an air-gapped computer, and 2) take a USB drive that was plugged into the air-gapped computer and plug it back into an internet-connected computer. Plus, all computers in the dataflow above must be running Windows, right?
- sverige 9y ago
  >Plus, all computers in the dataflow above must be running Windows, right? Linux surely has plenty of 0 days to exploit.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    Sure. But "plenty" is not equivalent to "so cheap and so powerful that a well-funded state actor would automatically design every targeted exploit package to be cross-platform." At least this particular case suggests that is probably not the case. Keep in mind from the article that the user must browse the files in the GUI for the exploit to work. I doubt Windows and the set of the most commonly used Linux GUI file browsers all have "plenty" of 0 days to exploit for this same purpose. Or, if they do, it's going to cost substantially more money to find them, test them, and package them up. On an unrelated note, I agree-- the Linux kernel probably has plenty of 0 days to exploit.
chenster 9y ago
So .. is Mac safe, relatively speaking?
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Good for the CIA having skills and tools like this. These are needed. But is hacking really a "weapon"? I think that hacking is a technical capability or tool, but I wouldn't call it a weapon. The flip side of this is that we have to realize that as long as vulnerabilities are put in to protocols/products on behalf of Govts, The Govts can exploit them sure, but other people who ahve the ability to read or view code will eventually find out/figure out these weaknesses/exploits also. Like weakening a protocol that all systems, even your own use. Then not even the govt itself is safe or can defend adequately against them. I really believe in Security Karma.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Stuxnet was surely a weapon, right?
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    Stuxnet as an entity, was just the method to deliver different payloads right? I'm not exactly convinced if id ever class that as a weapon over a clever hack. I mean, is the ability to read and find holes in code, a weapon? Was it a weapon or a very clever hacking job that prevented and held back scientists in Iran from creating an actual weapon? Either way, it was peace through superior code and vulnerability finding power It begs the question though, is the text editor mightier than the sword?
bronzeage 9y ago
Why is it that only the US, but not china, russia, U.K, germany, etc., out of all the strong countries, have these leaks? U.S needs to take a good look at itself and find the reason that their intelligence organizations are like a leaky bucket. It seems as if americans don't care and don't even see it as a bad thing when traitors sabotage entire organizations years of work. In any other sane country, the outrage against such leakers would be far greater than the outrage against the government for doing its job. If a person was as a big traitor as snowden in my country, you'd see his whole family and friends deny him, he would think twice before doing it not only because of the chance of getting caught and going to jail, but from the actual embarassment and shame from all the people close to him. Yet look at snowden, acting like he's some hero. Look at all the other leakers. They are barely ashamed. Your society hates the government so much you're turning traitors into heroes. Your security screening process is probably failing hard with so many leaks. How can the US allies trust it when everything leaks one way or the other. Leaking should be considered such a horrible treason the only the most psychopathic person would do it, and the screening should screen those out. But when society views leakers as heroes, and even the president freely leaks other countries intelligence to russia, followed by even more leaks than what he actually said, when it's justified as long as 1 in the 1000 documents they leaked shows some government wrongdoing (and statistically this will ALWAYS happen), they aren't traitors they are heroes. Then you don't need be a huge psychopath to betray your country. You just need some nudge in the 'right' direction. If any of you think the right approach is to have no secrets (a.k.a. no vulnerabilities. Today it's vulnerabilities, tommorow it's CIA agents identities), you're naive. If you think your enemies will be as righteous as you, you are naive. If you think that if you disclose all vulnerabilities, nobody will have them, you are naive because russia and china will find their own different vulnerabilities.
- swiley 9y ago
  The USG has traditionally not kept secrets from the populous (or not for very long.) The idea that they are not only keeping secrets but that these secrets are evidence of corruption and violation of our trust means that it is, in fact, a good thing they where leaked.
  - 9y ago
dboreham 9y ago
This doesn't describe an air gap jump in the sense I understand the term (compromising or extracting data from a system that isn't connected to anything external, perhaps by ultrasound via the speaker/mic). This is regular movie-style "plug the magic thumb drive in" trick, no?
deepnet 9y ago
There seems to be no evidence that public money is being spent on national cyber-defense, i.e. counter measures - at least there have been no links suggesting the NSA, CIA or GCHQ are working on patches. This leaves private industry, e.g. Microsoft et al, solely responsible for defending citizens. As there is no disclosure by the spies, Microsoft cannot patch without knowledge of the vulnerabilities - at least until there is a leak or potential leak that promts a reluctant disclosure. This leaves one wondering is tax money being spent solely to make us less safe ? Could Wannacries NHS (UK) devastation have been averted if academic security researchers had responsibly disclosed the potential for this vulnerability ? Surely the UK Health Minister should have been more properly briefed on the dangers to patients that his decision not to patch Windows could have ? If these agencies come crying for more tax dollars we should seriously enquire if they have any plans to make us safer rather than continuing to backdoor their own citizens. Surely laws being passed in the UK and USA to curtail security research the danger to the public can only increase. Without whistleblowers and journalists such as Wikileaks we would far more at risk from cyber-attacks ! I say Wikileaks as we know journalists are being targeted by Nation State actors to hack the identities of their sources. and Wikileaks is a fine exemplar of decent Op-Sec.

140 points by Sami_Lehtinen 9y ago

My understanding of air-gapped network/computer is that it gets no access to Internet/External devices (like a thumb drive in this case). So is accurate to call it "hacking air-gapped network"?

kazinator 9y ago
Indeed, A and B are not "gapped" if a thumb drive connects to B, and then later the same thumb drive connects to A. That's the same as being able to send a datagram from B to A over a network. "Air gapped" is an idiotic term to begin with. Radio communication such as Wi-Fi is literally air-gapped. The plates of a capacitor can use air as a dielectric, making them literally air-gapped, yet the cap will pass AC signal, and two adjacent air-gapped inductors can pass signal, as well as power with great efficiency.
- mikeash 9y ago
  It's a perfectly reasonable term. It's not used for its literal meaning here, but that's fine. We use "network" to describe things that are not literally a net-like arrangement of threads, wires, etc.
- Shorel 9y ago
  It is not idiotic. It is anachronistic.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
tgragnato 9y ago
In quite every system you need to exchange data, and the usage of a medium to move data between the trusted host and the untrusted host is _usually reasonable_ and _common practice_ (traditionally you move data from black to red with less restrictions, while the reverse procedure is more rigorous). Making a comparison, I’d say air gapping is to networking what galvanic isolation is to circuits: you don’t have direct contact, but there’s information exchange (be it bytes or em fields). EDIT: I would call a (strictly) isolated computer a tempest-compliant and physically isolated host.
- zulln 9y ago
  Say you store your private PGP-key on a air-gapped computer. When receiving a sensitive document you put in on a USB-drive, enter it to the air-gapped machine and then physically destroy the USB-drive. The air-gapped machine then directly presents the decryption on a monitor. There definitely exist scenarios where the air-gapped machine to not have to both communicate out and in, but where only in is required.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
nickpsecurity 9y ago
As others said, you usually need to move data. So, the typical solution for defense sector was to use high-assurance guards or data diodes. The former are like firewalls with an implementation designed to actually stop state-sponsored hackers rather than fill bank accounts keeping out the least skilled hackers. They do the latter, too, at the prices they charge. The data diodes are devices that allow data to only flow one way. There's at least two, use cases for that depending on which way the data flows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidirectional_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidirectional_network

azinman2 9y ago

And what does the world gain by Wikileaks leaking this for public usage? It will only become more ubiquitous. Microsoft already has patched the vulnerability. When will Russia, China, Israel, Iran, France, North Korea or other countries wares be leaked? Something tells me they wouldn’t even if they got it...

fit2rule 9y ago
What is the gain? We civilians no longer have to be victims to our out-of-control governments, who are no longer working to protect us, but rather their corporate interests.
- mavdi 9y ago
  I have no idea how leaking highly classified cyberwar toolkit helps that cause.
  - tgragnato 9y ago
    I am very interested in knowing if there is an equally efficient alternative.
    - fit2rule 9y ago
      The alternative is a social system designed not to keep secrets, but reveal them.
      - shakna 9y ago
        I don't think that is realistically practical. Currently you have several secrets you use to confirm your identity. The idea of the individual would need to be eliminated to remove all secrets.
        kakarot 9y ago
        It's funny you say that. I've had a longstanding conclusion that my true individuality only arises from the secrets I keep. Even if these are benign and even sometimes silly secrets, even if no one would find them interesting, they are the only thing I have that sets me apart from others. This is another reason I feel anxious over creeping mass surveillance and the loss of privacy. It's a direct threat to my individuality.

Software_Sucks 9y ago

We can use this to defeat those evil Russians that are controlling our elections!

pb8226 9y ago
America really does have an obsession with Russia. It wasn't just communism.
- briandear 9y ago
  Probably because they have one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet? Who wouldn’t be concerned? The only reason Russia doesn’t own most of Europe right now is because of that American “obsession.” You think that Russia would have stopped at the Crimea if it weren’t for the heavy US presence in Poland?
  - evook 9y ago
    Yes, you can't compare Crimea with western Europe. Crimea was mostly Russian to begin with.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      Poland, by that argument, as well as swaths of Germany, were arguably once "mostly Russia to begin with". Almost every civilisation can look back into its history and find convenient boundaries.
      - insertnickname 9y ago
        The argument is that Crimea is mostly Russian _today_, not just 50, 100, or more years ago. >According to the (2001 census), the ethnic makeup of Crimea's population consists of the following self-reported groups: Russians:1.18 million (58.3%), Ukrainians: 492,200 (24.3%), Crimean Tatars: 243,400 (12.0%) [...] >According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 11.4% – Crimean Tatar, and 10.1% – Ukrainian. >Ukrainian was until 2014 the single official state language countrywide, but in Crimea government business was carried out mainly in Russian. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea

belorn 9y ago

With every leak of government produced malware I hope the issue get pushed a bit further onto the political agenda so a international treaty can be reached on software implemented weapons. There need to be some defined limits for what agencies can do and what happens when the weapons sooner or later are discovered and turned into problems like WannaCry. Its clear to most politicians that its a problem if criminals use guns acquired from the military or police, and that its partial the fault of those agencies when it happens. We are not there yet with malware.

lyle_nel 9y ago
I don't disagree with you on any particular point. However, who do you suppose we trust to decide what is a software implemented weapon and what is not? Of course there are very clear black and white examples, but the in between is where we should be concerned. Consider the USA stance on export of encryption as a historical example of where it can go terribly wrong.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
What is your proposed test? Detecting a nuclear explosion or traces of chemical-weapons manufacturing is easy compared to figure out who made some malware component.
mindslight 9y ago
Your diagnosis is at odds with the basis of open security. The primary thing that needs to happen is an accepting of responsibility by those who administer critical systems. Mathematically, what we call a developed "exploit" is really just an existence proof that something is already insecure (hence "PoC or GTFO"). The blame needs to be properly assigned to the developers/integrators of these systems for negligence (currently gross negligence - eg relying on Turing-complete languages) instead of scapegoating those who discover the emperor has no clothes, even despite their underlying motivations and lack of full disclosure. Nasty exploits have always existed - the worrisome development is the scale of execution brought on by entities with such resources, and the trend of governments becoming overtly adversarial against the people, both their own citizens and foreign individuals. Even if it were practical (see: China's attitude to imaginary property), having these entities form treaties (ie collude) with one another is not going to resolve this. If anything, treaties will form gentleman's agreements between allies, while enshrining the attacking individuals "of interest" as standard procedure.

qubex 9y ago

Tomorrow unwary operatives or turncoats will turn up at work, submit to a surprise frisk-down to find whether they're carrying any USB drives, these will be ceased, and analysed, and found to contain this malware, and they'll be tossed into the deepest dungeons with only a kangaroo court to look forward to.

qubex 9y ago
Anybody care to explain why I was downvoted for explaining what the immediate consequences to operatives will be? Or à la Assange would we all rather ignore the risk people are being placed at?
mcguire 9y ago
Why would you expect an agent to be carrying one of these things? The typical vector ous some innocent local with poor security hygiene.

gruez 9y ago

Shouldn't the Wikileaks page be linked instead? The original article doesn't add anything and the wl page has more technical details.

dang 9y ago
Ok, we changed to that from https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3012499/-wikileaks-cia-uses-brutal-kangaroo-toolkit-to-hack-air-gapped-networks https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3012499/-wikileaks..., which points to it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jancsika 9y ago

Doesn't this require two-way dataflow between the air-gapped computer(s) and the "primary host"? Edit: in other words, you would have to 1) plug a USB drive into the "primary" host and then plug the same drive into an air-gapped computer, and 2) take a USB drive that was plugged into the air-gapped computer and plug it back into an internet-connected computer. Plus, all computers in the dataflow above must be running Windows, right?

sverige 9y ago
>Plus, all computers in the dataflow above must be running Windows, right? Linux surely has plenty of 0 days to exploit.
- jancsika 9y ago
  Sure. But "plenty" is not equivalent to "so cheap and so powerful that a well-funded state actor would automatically design every targeted exploit package to be cross-platform." At least this particular case suggests that is probably not the case. Keep in mind from the article that the user must browse the files in the GUI for the exploit to work. I doubt Windows and the set of the most commonly used Linux GUI file browsers all have "plenty" of 0 days to exploit for this same purpose. Or, if they do, it's going to cost substantially more money to find them, test them, and package them up. On an unrelated note, I agree-- the Linux kernel probably has plenty of 0 days to exploit.

chenster 9y ago

So .. is Mac safe, relatively speaking?

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

Good for the CIA having skills and tools like this. These are needed. But is hacking really a "weapon"? I think that hacking is a technical capability or tool, but I wouldn't call it a weapon. The flip side of this is that we have to realize that as long as vulnerabilities are put in to protocols/products on behalf of Govts, The Govts can exploit them sure, but other people who ahve the ability to read or view code will eventually find out/figure out these weaknesses/exploits also. Like weakening a protocol that all systems, even your own use. Then not even the govt itself is safe or can defend adequately against them. I really believe in Security Karma.

mcguire 9y ago
Stuxnet was surely a weapon, right?
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  Stuxnet as an entity, was just the method to deliver different payloads right? I'm not exactly convinced if id ever class that as a weapon over a clever hack. I mean, is the ability to read and find holes in code, a weapon? Was it a weapon or a very clever hacking job that prevented and held back scientists in Iran from creating an actual weapon? Either way, it was peace through superior code and vulnerability finding power It begs the question though, is the text editor mightier than the sword?

bronzeage 9y ago

Why is it that only the US, but not china, russia, U.K, germany, etc., out of all the strong countries, have these leaks? U.S needs to take a good look at itself and find the reason that their intelligence organizations are like a leaky bucket. It seems as if americans don't care and don't even see it as a bad thing when traitors sabotage entire organizations years of work. In any other sane country, the outrage against such leakers would be far greater than the outrage against the government for doing its job. If a person was as a big traitor as snowden in my country, you'd see his whole family and friends deny him, he would think twice before doing it not only because of the chance of getting caught and going to jail, but from the actual embarassment and shame from all the people close to him. Yet look at snowden, acting like he's some hero. Look at all the other leakers. They are barely ashamed. Your society hates the government so much you're turning traitors into heroes. Your security screening process is probably failing hard with so many leaks. How can the US allies trust it when everything leaks one way or the other. Leaking should be considered such a horrible treason the only the most psychopathic person would do it, and the screening should screen those out. But when society views leakers as heroes, and even the president freely leaks other countries intelligence to russia, followed by even more leaks than what he actually said, when it's justified as long as 1 in the 1000 documents they leaked shows some government wrongdoing (and statistically this will ALWAYS happen), they aren't traitors they are heroes. Then you don't need be a huge psychopath to betray your country. You just need some nudge in the 'right' direction. If any of you think the right approach is to have no secrets (a.k.a. no vulnerabilities. Today it's vulnerabilities, tommorow it's CIA agents identities), you're naive. If you think your enemies will be as righteous as you, you are naive. If you think that if you disclose all vulnerabilities, nobody will have them, you are naive because russia and china will find their own different vulnerabilities.

swiley 9y ago
The USG has traditionally not kept secrets from the populous (or not for very long.) The idea that they are not only keeping secrets but that these secrets are evidence of corruption and violation of our trust means that it is, in fact, a good thing they where leaked.
- 9y ago

dboreham 9y ago

This doesn't describe an air gap jump in the sense I understand the term (compromising or extracting data from a system that isn't connected to anything external, perhaps by ultrasound via the speaker/mic). This is regular movie-style "plug the magic thumb drive in" trick, no?

deepnet 9y ago

There seems to be no evidence that public money is being spent on national cyber-defense, i.e. counter measures - at least there have been no links suggesting the NSA, CIA or GCHQ are working on patches. This leaves private industry, e.g. Microsoft et al, solely responsible for defending citizens. As there is no disclosure by the spies, Microsoft cannot patch without knowledge of the vulnerabilities - at least until there is a leak or potential leak that promts a reluctant disclosure. This leaves one wondering is tax money being spent solely to make us less safe ? Could Wannacries NHS (UK) devastation have been averted if academic security researchers had responsibly disclosed the potential for this vulnerability ? Surely the UK Health Minister should have been more properly briefed on the dangers to patients that his decision not to patch Windows could have ? If these agencies come crying for more tax dollars we should seriously enquire if they have any plans to make us safer rather than continuing to backdoor their own citizens. Surely laws being passed in the UK and USA to curtail security research the danger to the public can only increase. Without whistleblowers and journalists such as Wikileaks we would far more at risk from cyber-attacks ! I say Wikileaks as we know journalists are being targeted by Nation State actors to hack the identities of their sources. and Wikileaks is a fine exemplar of decent Op-Sec.