6 ms·
> is this article reaching a bit? Is it? This circumented the Pentagon's security protocols, presumably disrupting its air gap. This is a national security bre
by Cthulhu_ 2y ago
> is this article reaching a bit?
Is it? This circumented the Pentagon's security protocols, presumably disrupting its air gap. This is a national security breach on the highest level, I'd say it's pretty serious and I don't understand why anyone is in the comment section trying to downplay or defend it.
- firesteelrain 2y agoHow did it disrupt its air gap? Thats presumably still in tact. If the article is true then he has an Internet connection in his office. He also has one on his personal cell, and probably his home. He could use Signal anywhere.
- kasey_junk 2y agoAnd did!
- Scarblac 2y agoThe secretary of defense was talking about military secrets on a device that does not have an air gap with the internet, so it was breached.
- firesteelrain 2y agoThat is not a breach. That’s a leak. If true then he spilled secrets. I don’t know what is and isn’t secret in his communications. Everyone is just assuming it was.
- op00to 2y agoWe do know what was said in at least one chat. Tactical battle information including timing and sequencing. Highly protected information, and a federal crime to disclose. What’s the difference between a breach, a leak, and a spill? It seems like you’re the one reaching here.
- firesteelrain 2y agoDefinitions https://csrc.nist.rip/glossary/term/classified_information_spillage https://csrc.nist.rip/glossary/term/classified_information_s... “ An air gap involves physically isolating a computer or network from other networks to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches. This method creates a literal "air gap" between the secured network and any other unsecured networks. Air gaps are an isolation method crucial for data integrity and security and can be deployed across various industries.” https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/what-is-air-gap https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/what-is-air... What part of what he communicated is classified and what is everyone basing that on? What says it is ?
- DonHopkins 2y ago[flagged]
- firesteelrain 2y agoI don’t respond to that. What did you read?
- op00to 2y agoI’m not doing your homework for you. If you’re asking these questions you’re either sea lioning or incredibly lazy. A short google will tell you exactly what occurred.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago> What’s the difference between a breach, a leak, and a spill? A breach is when security measures are bypassed and a leak is when information is given to someone who should not have it (a spill is a leak). If he was using an insecure connection for sensitive communications, then the “breach” would be his decision to do that while accidentally including the wrong people in the chat and the “leak” would be Jeffrey Goldberg receiving the messages. (Just answering the question. They were correct in a very literal way but it seems a bit pedantic. The overall point is moot given what we know.)
- 3np 2y agoScreenshots were published in the Atlantic and not denied. Read the reporting, read up on relevant laws, and judge yourself.
- firesteelrain 2y agoI can’t judge what is and isn’t classified other than it just looks bad optic-wise. I am not an expert in those communications.
- DonHopkins 2y ago[flagged]
- firesteelrain 2y ago[flagged]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago> This is a US topic. Why are you here? I don’t speak for them but one might guess that it’s because this is a public forum and they find the topic interesting. Why are you here?
- firesteelrain 2y ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y agoIf only American political decisions remained "US only" in their scope.
- DonHopkins 2y ago[flagged]
- tomrod 2y agoAt no point should anything semantically in the neighborhood of a breach or a leak be caused by the person who is #2 over a military. Full stop. There is no further argument.
- diego898 2y agoNot downplaying or defending - but I don’t understand the failure mode here - presumably hegseth had to ask someone in pentagon IT to set this up? Submit a form etc. sure he asked for something illegal* but someone actually following a set of rules had to enable this, no? (* or against protocols, etc)
- lukev 2y agoThe failure mode is that the Secretary of Defense unilaterally bypassed security protocols to use technology that had not been evaluated for that use case in a national security context by the appropriate experts. It doesn't matter if he happened to use something that has a solid security model. The problem isn't Signal, it's that he ignored all the rules. And it does have an impact, as we see in other news, because one failure mode of Signal is that it's super easy to add the wrong people to a group. Which has actually happened. Twice (at least.)
- diego898 2y agoI 100% agree - I’m only saying hegseth didn’t run an unsecured line into his office himself no? Why didn’t some automated system say “installation of unsecured lines in this building is not possible” or similar To be course : I didn’t think something so obviously wrong would have been allowed and enabled by several people who made this possible - removing absolutely no accountability from the person who asked for this to happen
- lukev 2y agoIf this happened the way it's being reported, yeah, several people should lose their jobs. I suspect this is a case of being more afraid of saying "no" to the boss than of facing consequences for violating policy. Policies are unfortunately not self-enforcing. Trump's been firing Inspectors General and dismantling mechanisms of internal accountability across the government, so perhaps that's a correct calculus in this case.
- betaby 2y ago> to use technology that had not been evaluated for that use case I'm curious what technology has been evaluated for secure communications. Are there better option? Is MS Teams approved?