3 ms·
The policy you linked doesn't say "agency-wide removal of security administrator roles". It discusses a limit. That says nothing about how many there were here,
by ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
The policy you linked doesn't say "agency-wide removal of security administrator roles". It discusses a limit. That says nothing about how many there were here, how it suddenly changed, how elmu's DOGE was able to gain administrator access despite these restrictions, how elmu's DOGE administrators were chosen, etc.
- pcaharrier 2y agoYes, a limit of eight. Meaning that if there were more than eight across the agency, the rest were supposed to be removed by order of CISA. So the binding operational directive is a plausible, alternate explanation of the facts reported in the article. Again, I didn't just do a google search and come up with this; the Deputy CIO specifically mentioned SCuBA in the email that's put in the article. It's not my fault that neither Krebs (nor anyone else, apparently) decided to look into what the email meant by "SCUBA."
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago> Meaning that if there were more than eight... That seems like a big "if". What I'm asking is, how many were there before elmu's DOGE started compromising systems? Was it more than 8? If not, that would not be a valid justification for the DCIO to cite. Did elmu's DOGE make sure not to grant themselves administrative access (because that would make it more than 8)? How many remain? Is it 8? Do the current administrators match the ones which existed before elmu's DOGE started compromising systems?