13 ms·
Bezos Investigation Says the Saudis Obtained His Private Data
- neom 8y ago"Experts with whom we consulted confirmed New York Times reports on the Saudi capability to “collect vast amounts of previously inaccessible data from smartphones in the air without leaving a trace—including phone calls, texts, emails”—and confirmed that hacking was a key part of the Saudi’s “extensive surveillance efforts that ultimately led to the killing of [Washington Post] journalist Jamal Khashoggi.”"
- cronix 8y agoIt was probably Pegasus, from NSO Group. 60 Minutes just had a segment last Sunday: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/ceo-of-israeli-spyware-maker-nso-on-fighting-terror-khashoggi-murder-and-saudi-arabia-60-minutes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/video/ceo-of-israeli-spyware-maker-n...
- m0zg 8y agoHorseshit, if I've ever seen it. Both sides used Apple Messages, which is encrypted end to end. Not even Apple can "intercept" anything.
- Phlarp 8y agoEnd to end encryption isn't super useful if one or both endpoints are compromised.
- m0zg 8y agoExactly my point. If someone else other than Sanchez had access to her phone, E2E encryption won't do shit. But to say that anyone is able to magically "intercept" E2E encrypted communications out of thin air is total bullshit. If I were Bezos, I'd refuse to pay for this "investigation".
- Twirrim 8y ago> Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details. Note the words "Had access to Bezos' phone". E2E encryption means bugger all when someone has access to one end. There's other comments in the article that give the impression Bezos' phone was compromised.
- m0zg 8y agoHow did they "gain access" to it? I want to know the details, not some bullshit a reporter made up on the spot. Read the iOS security whitepaper. It does not seem possible to "gain access" to iOS devices unless you have physical access, and are able to unlock the device. There's layer upon layer of security, some of which go all the way down to a tamper-proof chip. Every app encrypts its files with different keys, so cross-contamination between apps is not possible. Everything is encrypted, with multiple distinct keys, managed by dedicated hardware. Not even the FBI and NSA can "gain" unauthorized access to it. Heck, not even Apple can. You are being fed a narrative. You should recognize this when it happens if you don't want to continue being a sucker.
- Twirrim 8y ago> not some bullshit a reporter made up on the spot This article wasn't written by a reporter, which doesn't bode well for your reading comprehension skills. > You are being fed a narrative. You should recognize this when it happens if you don't want to continue being a sucker. You're making a really big assumption about what I am, or am not, taking from the article.
- Phlarp 8y agoYou seem really invested in this either not being the Saudi's or being Sanchez (or her brother-in-law as has been speculated). Given the political situation surrounding this whole story is best summarized as "a double shit sandwich, extra runny" I'm wondering if your feelings on the politics are clouding your technical judgement? Of if you are outright trying to spread disinformation. We have pretty ample evidence that FBI can indeed get into iPhones when needed[0] and I don't think it's a leap to assume that if the FBI can do it, CIA and NSA won't have issues with it either. I suspect Saudi intel services are capable of throwing money at the same vendors that the FBI uses. Apple takes great care to make things as secure as possible but even the most sophisticated encryption schemes are broken when you can arbitrarily, remotely and silently screenshot the data in question. Bezos is the richest man in the world, he's not hiring some fly-by-night security consultancy. He personally employs some of the smartest information security consultants on the planet through Amazon. They also provide cloud services directly to the military and intelligence agencies. He's got plenty of knowledgeable contacts to consult with. [0] https://thehackernews.com/2017/10/apple-fbi-iphone-unlock.html https://thehackernews.com/2017/10/apple-fbi-iphone-unlock.ht...
- jstanley 8y agoThis is great, but I take issue with the phrase "the Saudis". There are about 33 million Saudis. I doubt most of them had anything to do with this, and I think it's important to maintain a mental distinction between the government of a country and its people.
- YjSe2GMQ 8y agoI think people generally understand that it's a dictatorship, referred to as "the Saudis". Much like actions of ISIS are not indicative of what your average Muslim neighbor is up to.
- GordonS 8y agoOK, but you'd presumably take issue if a headline said "The Muslims" rather than "ISIS". I agree that people generally understand that in this case the headline refers to the Saudi government - but OTOH, this kind of "generalisational" language can perhaps be a form of propaganda, or at least subconsciously change some readers' perception with constant exposure.
- sparky_z 8y agoThat's completely different though. That's like referring to the Israeli government is a headline as "The Israelis" vs "The Jews". They're both overbroad when taken literally, but the former is standard shorthand that is clear from context and the latter strongly suggests that writer has an anti-Semitic motivation.
- iceninenines 8y agoBillionaires' squabble isn't news... totalitarian autocrats killing journalists doing their job, grotesque pay inequality, a POTUS getting away with treason, lack of UBI to cover a systemic lack of opportunities are and widespread inaction on the climate emergency are.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- devoply 8y agoAnd now the US wants to give M. Bone Saw nuclear tech. What could possibly go wrong?
- scottie_m 8y agoProbably not much, as I suspect the Israelis will keep a very close eye on the project and intervene if/as needed. They have a more realistic long-term view of the region IMO, and are capable of handling these issues effectively, if not quietly or gracefully.
- smt88 8y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/world/middleeast/saudi-khashoggi-spyware-israel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/world/middleeast/saudi-kh...
- scottie_m 8y agoYou have to wonder if that software has flaws known to the Israelis, I certainly would if I used it.
- devoply 8y agoIsraelis have made friends with MBS. Color me surprised. https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/MBS-youve-been-cleared-for-landing-577825 https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/MBS-youve-been-cleared-for-lan...
- bilbo0s 8y agoWait? What? Are you seriously suggesting that in lieu of cutting the problem off at the source by NOT giving a dangerous man like MBS nuclear weapons, we should rely on other nations in the region to clean up the mess?
- scottie_m 8y agoNo, that isn’t at all what I’m saying, and you can tell that’s the case because it bears literally no relation to what I did say.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoI read it...or so I think. No details on how hacking was done, method, time etc. They hate Bezos (obvious,) they have capabilities to spy on phones, and they do retaliate /blackmail, but a phishing message sent or a spyware would have sealed the proof.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bwb 8y agoHe turned over details to gov, more will be coming I would imagine.
- raiyu 8y agoAm I the only one that feels this is a bit far fetched? Perhaps because it is light on technical details, or more so, what the point of the article is. If Jeff Bezos paid for the investigation given how publicly he came out with his first statement, why would he not be the one issuing the follow up? And if he did pay this person what is the point of this coming out here, and on the daily beast. Just doesn’t quite add up for me.
- 3327 8y agoThe article is full of hot air. Poorly written and not sure what the point or conclusion is. PErhaps its a teaser piece of what's to come.
- aljones 8y agoYou are skeptical that Bezos would delegate publicly describing the results of the investigation to the person he publicly hired to investigate?
- nlh 8y agoPutting aside the politics / personal matters here, a nerd question (this is HN after all!): Does anyone have a sense (even broadly) of the specific methods that were used to intercept Bezos' texts? Did he use an iOS or Android device? Were the cell towers attacked? Was he the victim of a good 'ol zero day piece of malware? (I presume Bezos isn't the kind of guy to click on random email attachments on his phone). Just curious what universe they were playing in. (Speculation welcome!)
- pen2l 8y agoProbably the same spyware that was used to spy on Khashoggi's iPhone -- spyware sold to them by the NSO group of Israel: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/world/middleeast/saudi-khashoggi-spyware-israel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/world/middleeast/saudi-kh...
- MagicPropmaker 8y agoThere's absolutely no evidence of this, and NSO says they didn't do this. Why should we believe your stories?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Iamhisalt 8y agoHi Mosad!
- amsau 8y agoYes there is. It’s been reported by many reporters. Citizen labs did an amazing job investigating NSO hacked phones. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/report-israel-authorized-nso-s-sale-of-spyware-to-saudi-arabia-1.6725044 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/report-israel-authorized... Then an ex mossad tried to get citizen labs to say antiemetic statement. Undercover agents target cybersecurity watchdog https://www.apnews.com/9f31fa2aa72946c694555a5074fc9f42 https://www.apnews.com/9f31fa2aa72946c694555a5074fc9f42 I had to edit my comment to add these two very important links from CNN and khashoggi twitter. khashoggi funded a Saudi group (they called themselves the Bees) who were working to counterattack Saudi bots and trend manipulation. His conversation and planning with them was all intercepted by the Saudi using NSO software. The group with khashoggi were able to push their hashtag and had it trending just 12 days before his murder Khashoggi tweet with the hashtag #what_do_you_know_about_the_bees. https://twitter.com/jkhashoggi/status/1043028035455221760?s=21 https://twitter.com/jkhashoggi/status/1043028035455221760?s=... CNN: WhatsApp conversation with the bee group intercepted by Saudi using NSO https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/02/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-whatsapp-messages-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&rm=1 https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/02/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-... QUOTING GAVIN DE BECKER “Bezos to sign would have required that I make a public statement, composed by them and then widely disseminated, saying that my investigation had concluded they hadn’t relied upon “any form of electronic eavesdropping or hacking in their news-gathering process.” Note here that I’d never publicly said anything about electronic eavesdropping or hacking—and they wanted to be sure I couldn’t” ——- Looks like NSO doesn’t want us to know think it’s their software..
- lawnchair_larry 8y agoThe title does not match the article at all. He didn’t find anything. He found that Saudis don’t like Bezos and that they hack phones. It’s quite a stretch to go from that to saying they hacked the Bezos phone.
- dustinmoorenet 8y agoNo, they didn't state in the article the evidence because it has been handed over to the authorities to deal with. It is now an active investigation.
- meowface 8y agoI don't think that's the case. The article makes a very specific claim: >Further, to respect officials pursuing this case, I won’t disclose details from our investigation. I am, however, comfortable confirming one key fact: >Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details. He claims there is direct evidence that they accessed Bezos' phone. It may not be true, but opting to not disclose evidence doesn't mean none exists. I also doubt Bezos and his lawyer would make such a major accusation like that without confidence that it's true.
- zaroth 8y agoI thought "claim with high confidence" is intelligence speak for we don't have a fucking clue but it's the narrative we're running with. </s> This is really no better than citing anonymous sources. There is a story if and when, and not a moment before, actual evidence (with some respectably chain of custody) is actually provided. EDIT: The word "evidence" only appears once in the editorial, talking about an AP article reporting that the Saudi's were sent an advanced digital copy of the pro-MBS magazine. Read it carefully, Gavin never equivocally states he has any evidence that the Saudi's had access to Jeff's texts. They interviewed people. They were told by other people that the Saudi's had this capability. SA apparently "unleashed their cyber-army on Bezos". And AMI has done [presumably highly lucrative] work for MBS. And AMI is bad because they caught-and-killed a story for Trump, and have done things for Trump in the past. That is all we get here, aside from the ominous ending of Saudi Arabia controlling our media. I'm just so tired of the conspiracy theories. Not knowing why AMI started talking to Michael Sanchez is not the same as knowing that the Saudi's told them to talk to Sanchez.
- m0zg 8y agoThere was nothing to "intercept" I think. Sanchez's brother copied them and forwarded them to The Enquirer in exchange for a decent sized bag of cash.
- amsau 8y agoI don’t think you read the article! Gavin clearly says that’s not what happened!!
- martin_bech 8y agoDownvoted, since you clearly did not read the article.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bronco21016 8y agoApparently not conspiracy theory enough. From my reading this is exactly what happened. Reported by AP News, CNN, Fox News, and The Verge.
- mikeyouse 8y agoIf you read the linked article, it's clear that somebody told the enquirer to approach the brother-in-law to buy the photos —— somebody already knew that Bezos and his mistress were exchanging inappropriate texts before the brother-in-law. Bezos’s investigators claim to have forwarded evidence to the US government that shows the Saudis were behind it. We’ll see what happens given how close this administration is to MBS. This is just privatized parallel construction weaponized against a critic of the Saudi government.
- bronco21016 8y agoLet me start with saying that in no way do I think the Saudis are not nefarious or clear of any guilt in this case. However, the original post asked how the digital material was obtained. The post, and many others, imply some technical wizardry was used to obtain said info. Who is to say the Saudis did not employ traditional human intelligence to learn that the brother had access to the ‘dirt’? My point is simply: just because the Saudis knew which stone to turn over does not mean they used some technical prowess to turn over said stone. [edit] clarify my stone turning over analogy.
- simonblack 8y agoI don't know what he's so concerned about. He knows as well as the the rest of us that "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about."
- jondubois 8y agoIt's surprising that someone as wealthy and famous as Jeff Bezos would be storing such photos on his phone. I already kind of treat my phone as though it's public domain. The amount of software which runs on most devices today is unfathomable. Keeping your devices completely secure seems almost impossible.
- comboy 8y agoWhat do you suggest CEOs of big companies should use to communicate with other people? They need phones and laptops. If you trust it with company data why wouldn't you trust it with your private data? It's nice to separate the two but that's besides the point.
- jjeaff 8y agoYou need technology to conduct business. Just like many people need to drive, even though it is rather dangerous to drive or ride in a car. There are very few reasons to take and store naked photos of yourself on your phone. So I submit that it's usually a bad idea to do so.
- danso 8y agoHe sent these photos to his lover. He may not necessarily have kept them after sending.
- maehwasu 8y agoAs someone who frequently takes and stores such photos, I would argue that mutual arousal between partners is an extremely strong human drive/need. "I like things that make me feel good" is generally considered a very, very satisfactory reason by 99.999% of the population. This is getting close to saying "Sexual intercourse is very dangerous. Outside of reproduction, there are very few reasons to have sexual intercourse, so I submit that it's usually a bad idea to do so."
- jjeaff 8y ago
- mr_toad 8y agoIf even half of this is true we clearly need stronger encryption and security, not back-doors and anti-encryption laws. Democracy depends on freedom of expression, freedom of association, and privacy - all of which are threatened by espionage and blackmail.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- meowface 8y ago(removed, see below)
- amingilani 8y agoHN has a way of self correcting. Come back in a few hours and most of the bad comments should be killed by down votes. Sometimes when a thread or story is killed, though, the comments survive and multiply because the broader community can't moderate them.
- meowface 8y agoTrue, good point. I've seen that before. I'll come back later. Also, to be clear, disagreement and skepticism about what's written in the article is a healthy and good thing. But the disagreement should take into account the full content of the article, since many counter-arguments here were specifically discussed in it.
- herodotus 8y agoI wonder how companies like Twitter (mentioned in the article), Google, Apple, Microsoft and even Amazon protect themeselves from rogue employees. If I, for example, was responsible for an OS's TCP/IP stack, I can imagine ways that I could compromise security with a very low probability of the compromise being detected. I hope that all companies are taking this kind of risk very seriously.
- alkibiades 8y agonot sure. seems dangerous because you don’t want a red scare with chinese employees for instance but there has been instances already where they’ve been caught
- justAnotherNET 8y agoIt's not a "red scare" (irrational/emotional overreaction) when the chinese government has an explicit policy to encourage this kind of behavior
- cal5k 8y agoThere are lots of methods, but the simplest is not allowing anyone to commit to the repo without having at least one other person review the code.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- biggio 8y agoWhy are there family run countries still in 2019?
- krapp 8y agoBecause those families control a lot of oil, guns, drugs or money.
- fictionfuture 8y agoSuccession in monarchies is a tricky subject, ask the Roman Empire. Family based succession, more or less provides a clear lineage and plan. Otherwise, military gets involved.
- darkpuma 8y agoPresumably nobody saw fit to remind the House of Saud what year it is...
- TheAceOfHearts 8y agoYou're welcome to go over there and tell them to stop it. They usually have a lot of power and resources, and they're unwilling to give it up. As an American, I don't want to see my fellow countrymen dying in another pointless war, so my view is that we should generally mind our own business. I've spoken with someone who claimed to be a monarchy proponent and they suggested I read: "Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice)", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I don't know anything about the author, nor have I read the book, but perhaps that might help provide some insight into why some support a monarchy.
- int_19h 8y agoI suggest you do look up the author, because he is rather infamous for saying and writing stuff like this: "In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." (Yes, the man seriously calls himself a libertarian.)
- zaroth 8y ago> You know him as Jeff Bezos; I know him as my client of 22 years. ... To understand where this story goes, some background is needed. Eyeroll. Why is Gavin writing this? In the Daily Beast? The narrative voice sets off immediate alarm bells, reading like a Tom Clancy novel; > What was unusual, very unusual, was how hard AMI people worked to publicly reveal their source’s identity. It really isn't all that unusual, when you feed a salacious story to a conspiracy-theory-mad media which is frothing at the mouth to bring down Trump by any means possible, and then claim the President cooked it up as political revenge. When the FBI has a non-prosecution agreement with you that any misdeed could throw you under a microscope... It would have surprised me more if AMI insisted on absolute secrecy of their source. This is classic "makes you look guilty either way" rubbish. The world's richest man got caught doing something that could literally cost him half his fortune in the ensuing divorce. I certainly wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of that particular counter-strike.
- largbae 8y agoInteresting questions, why is he writing this, and why here? A few guesses: 1) Bezos had made claims in his original post that AMI and the Saudis were in league on the Bezos attack. That got walked back a little in this post when he admitted that (paraphrasing): it is unclear how much AMI knew, but it was still totally the Saudis. Maybe there won't be any evidence coming to back that up other than the AMI lawyers' strange request. 2) Bezos had given some of the credit for these claims to de Becker before, but now the weight of any truth or not is squarely on GdB. 3) Setting the record straight(?) that Michael Sanchez was not vile but rather a semi-victim of a larger plot might be helpful to Jeff the human in love. Why The Beast? Well as you can now see every news wire picked it up within hours, so maybe they're just conveniently easy to use as the first publishing spot.
- xmly 8y agoWhat is the motivation of Saudis?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jammygit 8y agoWhy is it news when a billionaires privacy is invaded, but not ours?
- gcb0 8y ago> advising on controversial murder cases. I’ve seen a lot. And yet, I’ve recently seen things that have surprised even me, such as the National Enquirer’s parent company, AMI, being in league with a foreign nation I honestly don't know how to feel reading something that ranks politics above actual state sponsored murder. And having to accept that as the uncontested norm.
- gyaniv 8y agoIt was rather obvious even back then (or at least when Bezos first published his piece) that it was the Saudis that hacked his phone, I'm not entirely sure the significant of this message by De Becker. Furthermore, at least the way I see it, the more important party at fault here is AMI. I mean we can't really be surprised that a dictatorship is using their powers against powerful and influential people (especially those that have publicly opposed and blamed them of crimes). But we should be outraged when an American corporation cooperates with them, and we should do what we can to stop and punish them, both the Saudis (in whatever way we can), and more easily, the entire AMI group, it's executives and everyone involved.
- a3n 8y agoYes, AMI deserves outrage and prison. But big as they are, they're a tool. Saudi ordered the hit. As far as I, a lowly democratic individual contributor, can see.
- gyaniv 8y agoThey are only the tool, but they are also almost completely under our (judicial systems) control, as opposed to the foreign power (that is just trying to maintain it's control). Just like if someone spies for a foreign country, then while that country might be acting in an unfriendly way, and we should be wary of them in the future. Their agent is a traitor, and should be handled as such.
- joelx 8y agoSaudi Arabia ordered the murder of an American journalist six months ago. That journalist was attacked and cut into small pieces by a 20 man kill squad. Now, clear evidence has come out showing that the Saudis are willing to attack even the world’s wealthiest man, Jeff Bezos. If the founder of Amazon is in their crosshairs, it is clear that no American is safe. The traitor Trump is a big supporter of Saudi Arabia and is currently planning on selling them advanced nuclear technology. Saudi Arabia is as dangerous as Iran or North Korea or Russia – their financial backing is what made the World Trade Centers attack possible on 9/11. Saudi Arabia is an evil dictatorship and it must go. No American is safe.
- consultSKI 8y agoWould a VPN have prevented this?