4 ms·

OK, so I'm just a random anonymous coward. And arguably obsessed with my hobby. But I'm puzzled that Bezos would be corresponding with MBS on the same device t

OK, so I'm just a random anonymous coward. And arguably obsessed with my hobby. But I'm puzzled that Bezos would be corresponding with MBS on the same device that he uses for potentially embarrassing personal stuff. Isn't that just a totally obvious OPSEC fail? Edit: But that's what he did, isn't it? And how could that be considered safe?

joe_the_user 7y ago
I think this a good question. The problem is that even the head of a ginormous company with a strong connection to computer security generally (through AWS) is going to take actions based on convenience rather than OPSEC discipline. I think it's natural for any given human to chat with all one's friend on the same level, with the same device and so-forth. A given individual can train themselves to have hard walls in their personal dealings but I'd suspect that individual would be a mid-level specialist, not the owner/manager/CEO who gets their position by their ability to manage and connect with people, not through technical expertise.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I guess. But even before the Khashoggi assassination, MBS was arguably an obvious threat. I can't imagine considering him a "friend". I mean, I'd be gobsmacked if he mixed personal and business on the same devices. That could be disastrous, not just embarrassing. So a third device category doesn't seem unworkable. Edit: Also, wouldn't someone like Bezos have security advisers? And how could they have failed to warn him? One could make a similar argument about MBS, of course.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    This reminds me of the way that Barrack Obama tried to keep his personal cellphone once he became president. Having a personal relationship with the wealthy and powerful is a unique thing since these are the ultimate decision makers. I would guess that Bezos or anyone like him chats frequently with very powerful people and that this is factor in him maintaining his own power and influence. And mobile devices would seem to magnify that ability of the very topmost people to connect directly with each other - ie, this was all done by secretaries and through protocol but that's slower and can let one big boss instantly sway another. Of MBS doing his own spying and hacking is another way topmost people are becoming "do it yourself-ers".
    - iron0013 7y ago
      I shudder to think what would have happened if Obama had ultimately refused to give up his personal phone, and every half-talented hacking group on the planet had pwned it six ways from Sunday—what a national security disaster that would have been! Oh wait
      - ta999999171 7y ago
        The Clinton server wasn't really interesting because she broke the rules...it was because the Chinese/whomever could grab stuff and the owners had plausible deniability.
        kyboren 7y ago
        I'm pretty sure GP was actually referring to President Trump's refusal to give up his personal tweet gun^W^Wsmartphone.
        ta999999171 7y ago
        I'm just talking tech, not partisan politics.
        the_why_of_y 7y ago
        There wasn't much classified stuff to grab, if the FBI report is to be believed. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State%20Dept.%20to%20CEG%20-%20Classified%20Emails.pdf https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/document...
        VintageCool 7y ago
        IIRC, the Clinton server wasn't hacked. Meanwhile, the government email system was.
- newsbinator 7y ago
  Most given humans haven't hired high-price security consultants to audit their lives and establish protocols to lower vulnerabilities. Billionaires on the other hand...
empath75 7y ago
Sure. Maybe he wasn’t super worried about getting caught cheating on his wife. A few billion dollars pays for a lot of alimony and lawyers.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  More like $38 billion, I doubt he's happy about it.

joe_the_user 7y ago

I think this a good question. The problem is that even the head of a ginormous company with a strong connection to computer security generally (through AWS) is going to take actions based on convenience rather than OPSEC discipline. I think it's natural for any given human to chat with all one's friend on the same level, with the same device and so-forth. A given individual can train themselves to have hard walls in their personal dealings but I'd suspect that individual would be a mid-level specialist, not the owner/manager/CEO who gets their position by their ability to manage and connect with people, not through technical expertise.

mirimir 7y ago
I guess. But even before the Khashoggi assassination, MBS was arguably an obvious threat. I can't imagine considering him a "friend". I mean, I'd be gobsmacked if he mixed personal and business on the same devices. That could be disastrous, not just embarrassing. So a third device category doesn't seem unworkable. Edit: Also, wouldn't someone like Bezos have security advisers? And how could they have failed to warn him? One could make a similar argument about MBS, of course.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  This reminds me of the way that Barrack Obama tried to keep his personal cellphone once he became president. Having a personal relationship with the wealthy and powerful is a unique thing since these are the ultimate decision makers. I would guess that Bezos or anyone like him chats frequently with very powerful people and that this is factor in him maintaining his own power and influence. And mobile devices would seem to magnify that ability of the very topmost people to connect directly with each other - ie, this was all done by secretaries and through protocol but that's slower and can let one big boss instantly sway another. Of MBS doing his own spying and hacking is another way topmost people are becoming "do it yourself-ers".
  - iron0013 7y ago
    I shudder to think what would have happened if Obama had ultimately refused to give up his personal phone, and every half-talented hacking group on the planet had pwned it six ways from Sunday—what a national security disaster that would have been! Oh wait
    - ta999999171 7y ago
      The Clinton server wasn't really interesting because she broke the rules...it was because the Chinese/whomever could grab stuff and the owners had plausible deniability.
      - kyboren 7y ago
        I'm pretty sure GP was actually referring to President Trump's refusal to give up his personal tweet gun^W^Wsmartphone.
        ta999999171 7y ago
        I'm just talking tech, not partisan politics.
      - the_why_of_y 7y ago
        There wasn't much classified stuff to grab, if the FBI report is to be believed. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State%20Dept.%20to%20CEG%20-%20Classified%20Emails.pdf https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/document...
      - VintageCool 7y ago
        IIRC, the Clinton server wasn't hacked. Meanwhile, the government email system was.
newsbinator 7y ago
Most given humans haven't hired high-price security consultants to audit their lives and establish protocols to lower vulnerabilities. Billionaires on the other hand...

empath75 7y ago

Sure. Maybe he wasn’t super worried about getting caught cheating on his wife. A few billion dollars pays for a lot of alimony and lawyers.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
More like $38 billion, I doubt he's happy about it.