5 ms·

I can't really take much more of this... What is their goal?

by glenda 12y ago

vaadu 12y ago
control
- glenda 12y ago
  To what end though? They already have quite a bit of control...
  - paulannesley 12y ago
    Notice people with quite a bit of money don't cease money-making activities. They tend to increase them. Sometimes money and power are their own end goal.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Control is controlled by a need to control: Control controls control. At least according to Burroughs.
csandreasen 12y ago
Gathering foreign intelligence. It's not like their overarching mission is a huge secret. http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml
- glenda 12y ago
  At the expense of the sanity and security of those who the foreign intelligence is meant to protect? This is an obvious abuse with extreme existential consequences. Sort of reminds of this book I read as a kid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_(novel)#Plot_summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_(novel)#Plot_summary
  - meowface 12y ago
    >At the expense of the sanity and security of those who the foreign intelligence is meant to protect? Correct. NSA would say "the ends justify the means in this case". As they would say of literally all of their programs.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    I think the assaults on your sanity are likely more the result of sensationalized/incomplete reporting. The biggest issue I have with most of the Snowden reporting is that if the article doesn't outright jump to assumptions that aren't supported by the source material, they usually have unanswered questions and written in such a way that would cause the reader to jump to the worst possible conclusion. I'm not sure on the entirety of what's actually going on, but the only hard facts I can gleam from the original article[1] are: 1) GCHQ has an nmap/zmap-like tool (not surprising) 2) the various intelligence agencies hack their targets (not surprising) 3) they apparently gain control of relays to obscure their tracks (potentially disconcerting, but makes sense...) 4) the only criteria that was discussed was the fact that the relays can't be located in Five-Eyes countries (Slide 18). Bruce Schneier made a couple of observations on the slide decks[2]: 24 people were able to identify "a list of 3000+ potential ORBs" in 5-8 hours. The presentation does not go on to say whether all of those computers were actually infected. ... The slides never say how many of the "potential ORBs" CSEC discovers or the computers that register positive in GCHQ's "Orb identification" are actually infected Despite this, the article authors have no problem tossing in assertions not made in their source material, such as: "these spy agencies try to attack every possible system they can, presumably as it might provide access to further systems. Systems may be attacked simply because they might eventually create a path towards a valuable espionage target, even without actionable information indicating this will ever be the case." or "Thus, system and network administrators now face the threat of industrial espionage, sabotage and human rights violations created by nation-state ad- versaries indiscriminately attacking network infrastructure and breaking into services." Heck, as far as I can tell they apparently threw in Slide 9-16 (what appears to generic description of network hacking) solely so that they could include the phrase "The NSA presentation makes it clear that the agency embraces the mindset of criminals." (Neglecting to mention that the supposed "tools to support this criminal process" are a Wireshark dump of an ICMP ping response [Slide 14], what looks to be an FTP session labelled "Iraqi Ministry of Finance" showing an attempt at brute forcing the administrator account [Slide 15], and a screenshot of a freshly opened cmd.exe [Slide 16]) If the average person reads through this without looking at the text critically, they're going to walk away thinking "holy crap, they're hacking everyone!", which would indeed be terrifying. The problem is that the evidence needed to reach that conclusion isn't actually there. Nothing is shown regarding any actual process for selecting hosts to use as relays, or any actual number of hosts that they hack into. One commenter on the Schneier article[3] points out that they can't just indiscriminately gain control of hosts - the host isn't necessarily going to be reliable and the chances of them getting caught increase quickly as the number of hacked hosts increases. Nor do they mention if there is any effort to assess the potential political damage that may arise from the target selection. I'd be pretty pissed if I found out that my laptop was being covertly used to hack on their behalf, but on the other end of the scale I don't care if some random open SMTP server in Nigeria is being used by the NSA to spy on North Korea. [1] http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/NSA-GCHQ-The-HACIENDA-Program-for-Internet-Colonization-2292681.html http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/NSA-GCHQ-The-HACIENDA-Program... [2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_inf.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_i... [3] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_inf.html#c6676883 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_i...
- D4AHNGM 12y ago
  I find it quite amusing they don't roll with SSL/TLS on their website.
mpyne 12y ago
"Mapping the domain" is one thing all military agencies try to do, just like if you were a hacker who gained access to an unfamiliar subnet you'd likely try to figure out the lay of the land. I'm more surprised that NSA didn't already have programs to map the Internet, given how long nmap has been around. However it has the key words N, S, and A so let's just assume it's something sinister and evil.
rdtsc 12y ago
It is just how their bureaucratic apparatus evolved within its rules and constraints. At some point a 3 letter agency got a large sum of money and was told "here, gather intelligence". So they did. Hired people, poured money into projects, training, equipment, contractors, promotions. All this wrapped in secrecy and hidden in its own world. Joe Schmo head of department X heading cellphone baseband radio firmware hacks will make sure to lobby for his department and tell everyone how there are all these terrorists everywhere running around discussing dirty bomb plans over cell phone conversation, and only his department can save the world. Does he care about the world? No, but he cares about getting more recognition, more money, a larger budget, more people under him and so on. Every time something like a terrorist attack, war, defections, leaks happened the tendency is not to evaluate, scale down and reconsider where they are headed. But to ask for more budget, more equipment, more projects. Basically double down. So it is not that there is a cabal conspiring to hold us down that meets in a dark basement some place. But rather the constraints and rules present, if not actively thought against will lead to this. Another element in this is that those that might disagree with how things are run, don't get to rise high enough to the top to make a difference. Here we had Binney, Snowden and a few anonymous leakers. But it is not like they could have reason to the top in the administration to make a change from within so to speak. To steer the agency on a Constitutional path. So the top if full of those who believe in doing things the same way they are already being done.
pdkl95 12y ago
Their goal for some time now[1] is to keep cash flowing through the military-industrial-complex. They obviously don't have any kind of focus on actual intelligence work, or they wouldn't be so bad at basic practices like compartmentalization[2]. Even the ways they could abuse their surveillance capabilities seem to be more of a "bonus". They could be much worse, but that would distract form their business of piping cash to their "contractor" friends. Interestingly, the recent mess the EFF has been reporting on (Jewel v NSA) where they tried to retcon the public court record has - in the public court record - the DOJ lawyers delivering[3] and incredible Freuidan-slip. While arguing that basically nobody can ever have standing to challenge their Section 215 based activities, they mention this: (caps in original, emphasis mine) ALL THESE TERRIBLE DISCLOSURES THAT OCCURRED OVER THE PAST YEAR -- IN FACT, THIS IS THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY -- DISCLOSURES THAT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HAVE SERIOUSLY HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS *COMPANY*, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF PARTICULAR TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIERS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE ASSISTED THE NSA, "national security of this company". wow. [1] According to William Binny and others. This recent interview mentions it, as to many others. http://www.dw.de/binney-the-nsas-main-motives-power-and-money/a-17862571?maca=en-TWITTER-EN-2004-xml-mrss http://www.dw.de/binney-the-nsas-main-motives-power-and-mone... [2] For example, how the hell did Snowden even have access to that many sensitive docs? Even as a sysadmin, he didn't "need to know" a lot of that. They use to take that kind of practice deadly seriously. [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsealed-jewel-v-nsa-transcript-doj-has-nothing-contempt-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea...

I can't really take much more of this... What is their goal?

by glenda 12y ago

I can't really take much more of this... What is their goal?

vaadu 12y ago

control

glenda 12y ago
To what end though? They already have quite a bit of control...
- paulannesley 12y ago
  Notice people with quite a bit of money don't cease money-making activities. They tend to increase them. Sometimes money and power are their own end goal.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Control is controlled by a need to control: Control controls control. At least according to Burroughs.

csandreasen 12y ago

Gathering foreign intelligence. It's not like their overarching mission is a huge secret. http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml

glenda 12y ago
At the expense of the sanity and security of those who the foreign intelligence is meant to protect? This is an obvious abuse with extreme existential consequences. Sort of reminds of this book I read as a kid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_(novel)#Plot_summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_(novel)#Plot_summary
- meowface 12y ago
  >At the expense of the sanity and security of those who the foreign intelligence is meant to protect? Correct. NSA would say "the ends justify the means in this case". As they would say of literally all of their programs.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  I think the assaults on your sanity are likely more the result of sensationalized/incomplete reporting. The biggest issue I have with most of the Snowden reporting is that if the article doesn't outright jump to assumptions that aren't supported by the source material, they usually have unanswered questions and written in such a way that would cause the reader to jump to the worst possible conclusion. I'm not sure on the entirety of what's actually going on, but the only hard facts I can gleam from the original article[1] are: 1) GCHQ has an nmap/zmap-like tool (not surprising) 2) the various intelligence agencies hack their targets (not surprising) 3) they apparently gain control of relays to obscure their tracks (potentially disconcerting, but makes sense...) 4) the only criteria that was discussed was the fact that the relays can't be located in Five-Eyes countries (Slide 18). Bruce Schneier made a couple of observations on the slide decks[2]: 24 people were able to identify "a list of 3000+ potential ORBs" in 5-8 hours. The presentation does not go on to say whether all of those computers were actually infected. ... The slides never say how many of the "potential ORBs" CSEC discovers or the computers that register positive in GCHQ's "Orb identification" are actually infected Despite this, the article authors have no problem tossing in assertions not made in their source material, such as: "these spy agencies try to attack every possible system they can, presumably as it might provide access to further systems. Systems may be attacked simply because they might eventually create a path towards a valuable espionage target, even without actionable information indicating this will ever be the case." or "Thus, system and network administrators now face the threat of industrial espionage, sabotage and human rights violations created by nation-state ad- versaries indiscriminately attacking network infrastructure and breaking into services." Heck, as far as I can tell they apparently threw in Slide 9-16 (what appears to generic description of network hacking) solely so that they could include the phrase "The NSA presentation makes it clear that the agency embraces the mindset of criminals." (Neglecting to mention that the supposed "tools to support this criminal process" are a Wireshark dump of an ICMP ping response [Slide 14], what looks to be an FTP session labelled "Iraqi Ministry of Finance" showing an attempt at brute forcing the administrator account [Slide 15], and a screenshot of a freshly opened cmd.exe [Slide 16]) If the average person reads through this without looking at the text critically, they're going to walk away thinking "holy crap, they're hacking everyone!", which would indeed be terrifying. The problem is that the evidence needed to reach that conclusion isn't actually there. Nothing is shown regarding any actual process for selecting hosts to use as relays, or any actual number of hosts that they hack into. One commenter on the Schneier article[3] points out that they can't just indiscriminately gain control of hosts - the host isn't necessarily going to be reliable and the chances of them getting caught increase quickly as the number of hacked hosts increases. Nor do they mention if there is any effort to assess the potential political damage that may arise from the target selection. I'd be pretty pissed if I found out that my laptop was being covertly used to hack on their behalf, but on the other end of the scale I don't care if some random open SMTP server in Nigeria is being used by the NSA to spy on North Korea. [1] http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/NSA-GCHQ-The-HACIENDA-Program-for-Internet-Colonization-2292681.html http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/NSA-GCHQ-The-HACIENDA-Program... [2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_inf.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_i... [3] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_inf.html#c6676883 https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/08/nsagchqcesc_i...
D4AHNGM 12y ago
I find it quite amusing they don't roll with SSL/TLS on their website.

mpyne 12y ago

"Mapping the domain" is one thing all military agencies try to do, just like if you were a hacker who gained access to an unfamiliar subnet you'd likely try to figure out the lay of the land. I'm more surprised that NSA didn't already have programs to map the Internet, given how long nmap has been around. However it has the key words N, S, and A so let's just assume it's something sinister and evil.

rdtsc 12y ago

It is just how their bureaucratic apparatus evolved within its rules and constraints. At some point a 3 letter agency got a large sum of money and was told "here, gather intelligence". So they did. Hired people, poured money into projects, training, equipment, contractors, promotions. All this wrapped in secrecy and hidden in its own world. Joe Schmo head of department X heading cellphone baseband radio firmware hacks will make sure to lobby for his department and tell everyone how there are all these terrorists everywhere running around discussing dirty bomb plans over cell phone conversation, and only his department can save the world. Does he care about the world? No, but he cares about getting more recognition, more money, a larger budget, more people under him and so on. Every time something like a terrorist attack, war, defections, leaks happened the tendency is not to evaluate, scale down and reconsider where they are headed. But to ask for more budget, more equipment, more projects. Basically double down. So it is not that there is a cabal conspiring to hold us down that meets in a dark basement some place. But rather the constraints and rules present, if not actively thought against will lead to this. Another element in this is that those that might disagree with how things are run, don't get to rise high enough to the top to make a difference. Here we had Binney, Snowden and a few anonymous leakers. But it is not like they could have reason to the top in the administration to make a change from within so to speak. To steer the agency on a Constitutional path. So the top if full of those who believe in doing things the same way they are already being done.

pdkl95 12y ago

Their goal for some time now[1] is to keep cash flowing through the military-industrial-complex. They obviously don't have any kind of focus on actual intelligence work, or they wouldn't be so bad at basic practices like compartmentalization[2]. Even the ways they could abuse their surveillance capabilities seem to be more of a "bonus". They could be much worse, but that would distract form their business of piping cash to their "contractor" friends. Interestingly, the recent mess the EFF has been reporting on (Jewel v NSA) where they tried to retcon the public court record has - in the public court record - the DOJ lawyers delivering[3] and incredible Freuidan-slip. While arguing that basically nobody can ever have standing to challenge their Section 215 based activities, they mention this: (caps in original, emphasis mine) ALL THESE TERRIBLE DISCLOSURES THAT OCCURRED OVER THE PAST YEAR -- IN FACT, THIS IS THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY -- DISCLOSURES THAT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HAVE SERIOUSLY HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS *COMPANY*, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF PARTICULAR TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIERS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE ASSISTED THE NSA, "national security of this company". wow. [1] According to William Binny and others. This recent interview mentions it, as to many others. http://www.dw.de/binney-the-nsas-main-motives-power-and-money/a-17862571?maca=en-TWITTER-EN-2004-xml-mrss http://www.dw.de/binney-the-nsas-main-motives-power-and-mone... [2] For example, how the hell did Snowden even have access to that many sensitive docs? Even as a sysadmin, he didn't "need to know" a lot of that. They use to take that kind of practice deadly seriously. [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsealed-jewel-v-nsa-transcript-doj-has-nothing-contempt-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea...