Slashdot Mirror


NSA Takes On West Point In Security Exercise

Wired is running a story about a recent security exercise in which the NSA attacked networks set up by various US military academies. The Army's network scored the highest, put together using Linux and FreeBSD by cadets at West Point. Quoting: "Even with a solid network design and passable software choices, there was an element of intuitiveness required to defend against the NSA, especially once it became clear the agency was using minor, and perhaps somewhat obvious, attacks to screen for sneakier, more serious ones. 'One of the challenges was when they see a scan, deciding if this is it, or if it's a cover,' says [instructor Eric] Dean. Spotting 'cover' attacks meant thinking like the NSA -- something Dean says the cadets did quite well. 'I was surprised at their creativity.' Legal limitations were a surprising obstacle to a realistic exercise. Ideally, the teams would be allowed to attack other schools' networks while also defending their own. But only the NSA, with its arsenal of waivers, loopholes, special authorizations (and heaven knows what else) is allowed to take down a U.S. network."

140 comments

  1. More details, anybody? by neapolitan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Man, I love reading about stuff like this, but this article has some serious vagueness that really leaves unanswered questions. Perhaps a true security-fluent slashdotter can offer some insight if they are familiar with this particular game:

    Why does this require "custom tools" with automatic monitoring? Really, I doubt the students know the details of asymmetric security theory / Ph.D. level mathematics, and were monitoring something like (if I get a port scan from IP x.x.x.x then tell "router guys" to block IP x.x.x.x).

    It seems to me that this should be something that essentially should be done automatically, and with a very well-configured system would not cause that much of a problem.

    Also, the article was written for somebody who doesn't understand computers to go "whoa." "Kernel-level rootkit"? How the hell did this "unwelcome executable file" get on the box to begin with, and why was it executing in kernelspace? I assume they were required to start with a compromised system, otherwise this is something that major corporations do all day (general traffic monitoring) and is actually kind of not exciting.

    I wish that Wired and magazines would write at a technical level and describe accurately what is going on - IMHO more information is always better!

    --
    Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
    1. Re:More details, anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Man, I love reading about stuff like this, but this article has some serious vagueness that really leaves unanswered questions. Perhaps a true security-fluent slashdotter can offer some insight if they are familiar with this particular game:" - by neapolitan (1100101) * on Sunday May 11, @09:01AM (#23368462) I'll agree with you, 110%, that MANY 'security report' type articles are rather "vague" & I THINK they do that, on purpose - that purpose? TO NOT GIVE OTHERS "TOO MANY IDEAS" (via details), so they don't go & execute the 'better attacks' themselves, or worse, come up with 'variations' that their defensive technique (vs. said 'better attacks') do NOT work against... just a thought.

      APKm

    2. Re:More details, anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I have a friend (and I'm posting anon for his sake) that was a part of the games from the naval side. He is a very sharp person that is near completing his CompSci Masters. We we friends in CompSci undergrad and he joined the Navy and now has a high security clearance. I wish I could've grilled him a little more on what all goes on for these war games but I had something else important going on at the time he was telling me about them. Plus I'm a little used to getting vague descriptions of things due to his not being able to reveal details to me. He did ask me a few things (and I'm going to be vague here) that made me think he was doing some hard core stuff.

      As for your blocking method, we're talking about the NSA. They could easily scan with one IP and then blast you with another IP.

      He did tell me his team lost, though.

    3. Re:More details, anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo mama, Navy wings are brass, Army wings are gold!

    4. Re:More details, anybody? by milsoRgen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but this article has some serious vagueness that really leaves unanswered questions. Just like every other Wired article ever written.
      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    5. Re:More details, anybody? by joeboomer628 · · Score: 1

      Despite what Stephen King says, there are numerous highly intelligent individuals attending the US service academies that can not only read, they can do math also.

      --
      JoeR
    6. Re:More details, anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requirement for 'custom tools' was due to a new set of rules in the exercise this year. Because many of the schools did so well last year, the NSA red cell put a cap on what kinds of software and hardware could be used. This was to try and force us to think outside the box and apply the knowledge we got in our other IT and CS classes to the exercise.

      As for the kernel-level root kit, you hit the nail on the head.

    7. Re:More details, anybody? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Wired is written for non-technical people. I dont think its ever pretended to be anything but the 'people magazine' of technology, hence its popularity.

    8. Re:More details, anybody? by conan1989 · · Score: 1

      well what's some good 'nerd magazine' of technology?

    9. Re:More details, anybody? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Thats pretty subjective, but for me its Make Magazine.

  2. You have to understand by WillRobinson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Purchasing Open Source Tools that could automatically thwart these types of attacks is to expensive. They cost at least as much as a toilet seat, and we know from the news, that they have not been purchasing any toilet seats.

    1. Re:You have to understand by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Purchasing Open Source Tools that could automatically thwart these types of attacks is to expensive. They cost at least as much as a toilet seat, and we know from the news, that they have not been purchasing any toilet seats. Right, Purchasing is another department.
      We send all our orders through the Requisitions Dept.
      /In triplicate.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:You have to understand by Stickney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cost of free software is, of course, nothing... but the notional costs, built into the exercise through a restrictive budgeting system, of deploying those tools, along with training people to use them, put them outside our notional budget for the exercise.

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    3. Re:You have to understand by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The cost of free software is, of course, nothing... but the notional costs, built into the exercise through a restrictive budgeting system, of deploying those tools, along with training people to use them, put them outside our notional budget for the exercise.

      So the budget has zero dollars allocated for security now? Because any tool, Open or not, requires training...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Rootkit is payload... by argent · · Score: 1

    Rootkits are payload, normally, something deposited by an attacker using an exploit to get in. THe author of the article doesn't seem to appreciate the difference between the holes used to get into the network and the secondary attacks launched from there. It's not even clear from the article whether the Army ever found out how the rootkit was delivered.

    1. Re:Rootkit is payload... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      It's not even clear from the article whether the Army ever found out how the rootkit was delivered.

      TFA says they used Sysinternals RootkitRevealer to find it, which means it was a Windows exploit. The NSA guys probably just waved the rootkit in the general direction of kernel32...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Rootkit is payload... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      AM i reading a different TFA, i cant find any mention of that and i got the impression they were using a Linux & BSD based system?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:Rootkit is payload... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Informative
      i cant find any mention of that and i got the impression they were using a Linux & BSD based system?

      But the kernel-level rootkit was much more dangerous. This stealthy operating-system hijacker can open unseen "back doors" into even highly protected networks. When they detected the rootkit's "calls home" the cadets launched Sysinternal's security software to find the hijacker, then they manually scoured the workstation to find the unwelcome executable file. Since the article says the West Point team was running Linux/BSD, and specifically mentions that the cadets were running a "Fedora Core 8 Web server", I'm guessing the Windows system was being run by one of the other teams.

      Frankly, I was underwhelmed by the whole story. It was pretty clear the journo doesn't have a clue what was going on. Wired should be able to do better than that.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:Rootkit is payload... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      That is probably part of the requirements the NSA put on the agreement to allow the story to run.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    5. Re:Rootkit is payload... by EQ · · Score: 1

      Actually the rootkits mentioned did not "get int". They were preloaded along with tons of other security messes and misconfigurations on machines that the cadets were then challenged to secure on their network.

      The point of that part of the exercise being how good you are at detecting threats from the inside (far more common due to users introducing viruses and trojans from web sites they stupidly vision, hijacked browsers, programs loaded from thumb drives, CDs burned at home, etc.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    6. Re:Rootkit is payload... by Stickney · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Fedora Core 8 Web server", I'm guessing the Windows system was being run by one of the other teams.
      Yes, we ran a Fedora 8 LAMP server, but we were also required to run a Windows domain controller, an exchange server, and a Windows DNS server, along with two XP user workstations. The rest of our network, to including logging, traffic monitoring, and XMPP services, ran on FreeBSD (our choice). You're right though; not many of the reporters grasped much of what was going on.
      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    7. Re:Rootkit is payload... by argent · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I'll have to read the story more carefully because I didn't catch that...

  4. What's with the fearmongering? by pikakilla · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But only the NSA, with its arsenal of waivers, loopholes, special authorizations (and heaven knows what else) is allowed to take down a U.S. network

    Um, isn't the NSA part of the DoD? So they would not need anything special to take down a network as they are all under the same organization. Or, likewise, they would have consent which would allow them to attack the network. I really do not see the need for such a fear-mongering statement at the end of this summary.

    1. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by gbutler69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the NSA IS NOT part of the DOD. DOD is Department of Defense. There are 3 to 4 branches, depending on how you count: Army, Navy(Marines), Air Force. Yes, technically "The Marines" are part of the Navy.

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    2. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      You're making the assumption that one branch of the armed services (say, the Navy) is permitted by regulation to try to infiltrate another one. The NSA's mission is specifically to provide SIGINT and to protect government against foreign SIGINT - including military systems.

    3. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by SoapBox17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to wikipedia, "The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) is a cryptologic intelligence agency of the United States government, administered under the U.S. Department of Defense. " and "The Department includes the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, as well as non-combat agencies such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency."

      Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
      * Defense Intelligence Agency
      * Defense Security Service
      * Counterintelligence Field Activity
      * National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
      * National Reconnaissance Office
      * National Security Agency


    4. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      Only 3, Marines are part of the Navy and have absolutely no independent say at the DOD, they dont even have a department

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    5. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The NSA's mission is specifically to provide SIGINT

      You mean those PhD mathematicians sit around all day hitting Control-C's?

    6. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      oh forgot to add, your wrong BTW in another fact. the NSA IS a agency of the DOD.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    7. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by maxume · · Score: 0, Troll

      The NSA is a tool for use by the Secretary of Defense:

      http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.12

      About half of the people that work for the NSA are military.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      they dont even have a department
      Neither do the Army and Navy. I know what you're getting at, but all of the branches fall under the Department of Defense. And although the Marines are a part of the Navy, they still get a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think that an MOU/MOA between the parties would solve the "legal" issues mentioned.

    10. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      Yes they do, the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force all exist with their respective secretaries under the DoD.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    11. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia I know this is a bit citation Nazi-ish, but please don't cite Wikipedia directly. Any random yahoo could have thrown that up 5 minutes ago... hell you could have made that edit 5 minutes ago!

      That entire intro paragraph doesn't have one citation other than a passing reference to Title 10 USC

      Just sayin'...I'd like to read the part of the USC that sets up the NSA but honestly that's a big law document to parse
    12. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Just sayin'...I'd like to read the part of the USC that sets up the NSA but honestly that's a big law document to parse

      No Such Agency? Whatever gave you the idea that enough information about NSA was put into the USC to make a big law document?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      The NSA's mission is specifically to provide SIGINT

      You mean those PhD mathematicians sit around all day hitting Control-C's? Well, let's be fair. They probably have a bash script that does it pretty efficiently.

      Given the supercomputing clusters they no doubt have at their disposal, they could be generating a lot of SIGINT that way.
    14. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by mi · · Score: 1

      The real enemy would be attacking/scanning/jamming from many directions — using hired and/or own botnet(s) and other already cracked-into computers belonging to other schools, governments, individuals, corporations, and other organizations.

      The participants in the exercise weren't allowed to do that, except, maybe, for NSA and their near-universal root-access...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by maxume · · Score: 1

      O.k., poor wording, but read that link, there is an executive order directing the Secretary of Defense to utilize the NSA to gather intelligence.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that statement comes verbatim from the article. The context is also in the summary, so there should be no confusion. The military academies are not allowed to attack each other, even though they are all part of the DoD, they have each other's permission, and so on. But the NSA is allowed to attack those systems. The article attributes this to an "arsenal of waivers, loopholes..." the NSA supposedly has. If you have better information, please post it here.

    17. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      Lol well I was just expecting a one-liner in something like "10 USC Section 5 Subsection 4 Paragraph 3" or whatever :P

    18. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by maxume · · Score: 1
      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:What's with the fearmongering? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Um, isn't the NSA part of the DoD? And now we begin to see why most attacks against the NSA/CSS on slashdot are completely without merit. The NSA is part of the Intelligence Community and not the DoD. The CSS portion of the NSA is staffed by military folks, however, the NSA part is staffed by civil servants.

      I see it is easy enough to be confused with the facts that are open to the public; no wonder you guys can't get the more secretive bits right...

  5. speemborkle deregulus by quonsar · · Score: 1

    But only the NSA, with its arsenal of waivers, loopholes, special authorizations (and heaven knows what else) is allowed to take down a U.S. network."

    yah, right. 14 year old serbo-croatian kids do that every day.

    1. Re:speemborkle deregulus by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes kids outside the USA have to pass.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_promotion

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Sysinternals? Windows? by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    Isn't that a Windows thing? There is no other mention of Windows in the article.

    1. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Dreadneck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, SysInternals was sucked up by the collective...err...Microsoft. From reading the article it is fairly obvious that the only serious security challenge came from a Windows box compromised by a rootkit. It seems the LAMP server they were running (I assume it was LAMP - they mentioned Fedora 8, MySQL and Apache... I assume it also had PHP, Perl and Python) easily handled the SQL injection attacks. I wonder if having a windows box in your network was part of the requirements insisted upon by the NSA when the cadets set up their network? NSA-Key, anyone?

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
    2. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cadets were probably using some Windows machines to monitor their Linux servers/routers? A hacker would obviously aim for the machines which administrators are using to type in passwords to access more secure systems. An attack vector such as ARP poisoning is something that is often overlooked (they're too busy blocking IPs and ports) and would ensure quick and easy access to the Windows administration consoles. If I was attacking the network of the cadets, I'd keep them busy blocking ports and IPs on their IDS/routing equipment while thinking outside their box to attack their own administration workstations.

      The photo and article seemed to indicate to me that they were remotely monitoring and configuring their network over the same network that could be compromised. I am hoping that these cadets are being taught concepts such as what an air gap is. I also hope they're being taught that running monitoring applications such as Wireshark (Ethereal) often introduce new exploits into an otherwise secure network.

      The best hackers are the ones who are creative in their attack and defense. The defending team could have counter-attacked the attackers. Changing the focus of the attackers back onto their own attacking network rather than the target network is a great defense. Setting up honeypots (designed to be attacked) and then allowing the attackers to steal files that are riddled with file format bugs is another idea.

    3. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by 0racle · · Score: 1

      [blockquote] NSA-Key[/blockquote] Oh shut up.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Oh great, now I look like an idiot.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    5. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read up on the "Millenium Challenge '02" war games.
      Opposing Force Commander, Gen. Paul van Ripen won.
      He was not invited back :-)
      Cadets do not learn, they just get to press the "refloat" icon.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?ex=1357794000&en=a4dbb42d5ad2a700&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
      "The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack,.. "

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Dreadneck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and you can't make proper use of HTML either. :)

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
    7. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Stickney · · Score: 1

      As the cadet in charge of security for the Linux/FreeBSD boxes on the network, I can say that yes, it was LAMP on a Fedora 8 box; the NSA gave us 5 Windows virtual machines and 2 running Fedora 6. Because of the rules of the exercise, basically a very restrictive budget, we were able to build a Fedora repo and update the two linux machines to Fedora 8, but not enable firewalls or antivirus on any but a select few. Two of the Windows machines and the non-LAMP Fedora box were meant to simulate user workstations; these contained the rootkits.

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    8. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Stickney · · Score: 1

      Ummm.... cadets = Army or Air Force.

      Refloat = Navy.

      You mean "midshipmen".

      And yes, as a matter of fact, the US Naval Academy participated, and they got destroyed.

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    9. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Dreadneck · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info! Out of curiosity, were the machines with the rootkits compromised prior to the beginning of the exercise or during the course of the exercise? It would be interesting to know just what level of handicap you guys were forced to work with.

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
    10. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Stickney · · Score: 1

      As mentioned a few other places, we were given several machines (5 Windows, 2 Fedora 6) which we had to put on our network. Based on the budgeting rules, we scrapped one Windows box (a Windows 2000 XMPP server) and replaced it with a FreeBSD box. That server and three "user workstation" machines (1 Fedora, 2 Windows XP) were absolutely riddled with rootkits and other malware. We removed as much as we could find beforehand, but missed one rootkit in one of the Windows machines.

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    11. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      You have generation wintendo fresh from the streets and shopping malls of the USA.
      They are trained up a bit more on 'windows'.
      Why waste years, when they be interacting with a
      Tablet PC like gui on the front line?
      If they get McCained they can talk about moving
      icons around a screen and then the sky lights up.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:Sysinternals? Windows? by Dreadneck · · Score: 1

      It seems you guys did a pretty good job given how badly the NSA kneecapped you from the start. It would be interesting to know what the rules and goals of the exercise were. It almost seems as if the NSA wanted to test your ability to respond to an attack on a compromised network moreso that your ability to prevent it being compromised in the first place.

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
  7. Re:Fantastic by Keebler71 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you implying that previous generations do not have intelligence and creativity? Who do you think is teaching these cadets and running the exercise?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  8. Re:Fantastic by maxume · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dumbledore?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  9. this reminds me of... by jflo · · Score: 0

    This reminds of when LT Regenald Barkly started teaching at Star Fleet academy.... his stutter left many questions unanswered... but the bright side of this is that he was able to help the Voyager crew make proper communications with the Alpha quadrant.... ok this isnt really a joke, its fact.

    --
    WWPD - What Would Picard Do?
  10. West Point Club by Dak+RIT · · Score: 1, Informative

    This isn't really an official extension of West Point, but rather a club at West Point known as SIGSAC.

    The club's members every year get a chance to visit the NSA and see some rather interesting stuff, and so has a rather good relationship with the NSA in general.

    The club itself operates out of West Point but has a network connection that isn't attached to West Point's network. It has actually participated in contests in the past as well with other schools/groups, so unless something's changed in the past couple years, that part of the summary is incorrect. If I had to wager a guess I'd say the focus of the group is just being directed purely at defensive measures, rather than actual attacks.

    1. Re:West Point Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember that while a good solution of defense in depth is a start, in some situations the best defense might just be a strong offense.

    2. Re:West Point Club by Pinbll · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although SIGSAC was involved, this was done for the Information Assurance class that is taught by the CS department there. This was the culminating exercise. The course teaches security practices, and gives cadets a look into why it is important to program securely.

    3. Re:West Point Club by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I at least have a general understanding of the purpose of West Point. But I'm wondering: if you have a college graduate in a certain field, do they need to go to West Point afterwards or write a "West Point equivalency test"? or does the DoD formally recognize the degree? Its purely out of curiosity for me. I'm a Canadian anyhow so I likely wouldn't qualify for any jobs in the DoD anyways.

  11. Re:Fantastic by tgatliff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The USMA academy is some of the best of the best. Meaning, these guys have to be appointed by two state senators to even apply... That is why the kids that go there are the top 2% of the nation. Also, did I also mention that many of the the US best leaders came from West Point? :)

    In addition, I have several systems that run at the USMA, and know their admin personally. They have a pretty good network setup simply because they never have the money they need so they are forced to implement the best solution rather than the most expensive solution.

  12. I was in the exercise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was actually part of the exercise, and I would agree that the article is very vague. The main purpose of the exercise was to help cadets learn best security practices of building a network. There were required services we had to run, such as exchange, a web server, DNS, active directory, and a jabber messaging server. The rootkit they speak of was on the box because the other part of the exercise was trying to secure untrusted computers. They riddled two Windows VMs and one Linux VM with as much stuff as they could, and the told us to secure them. Naturally we missed some things, which allowed the callback to go out.

    As for the 'custom tools', I have no idea what they are talking about. We used native Windows logging and a few open source programs to pull logs to a log server, but that was about it for extra programs. I would agree that the article was written for the non-technical person, but those are the kinda of questions they were asking us when the reporter was here.

    1. Re:I was in the exercise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was also in the exercise... from the NSA side ;) (I have to post anonymously). I agree that the article IS very lean on details (as it should be), and geared toward a somewhat nontechnical audience. I have a different perspective from what the cadets at the USMA saw, as I experienced it from the opposition side.

      The network directive given out to the academies had stipulation they had to follow, and a scenario that reflected real world situations (the cadets were setting up a network that included VMs of computers they HAD to include in their network). The network directive also had costs associated with anything the cadets wanted to do. So if they wanted to park a cadet at a Snort terminal for the duration of the exercise, that had a cost associated with it, as did setting up VLANS, using IPSEC, other IDS sensors, firewalls, host/service monitors, etc. Each academy had to submit their network structure for review and approval prior to STARTEX. The scenario reflects real world situations that would come up in most operations that involve other allied nations.

      The NSA was strictly there to attack the networks and document any exploits they succeeded with. I can't go into details as to what our Rules of Engagement were, but suffice to say that we met with success with every school that was actually scored (the two graduate schools that participated were not scored).

      The whole goal of the exercise is to prepare the cadets for SECURING a network against information security threats. It is a DEFENSIVELY ORIENTED exercise. The cadets don't do any hacking (and I honestly think that unless a gifted or experienced cadet was at an academy with the skills to do a network penetration, they would not meet with much success).

    2. Re:I was in the exercise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck it's just good to know that slashdot is frequented by the NSA! No more of those posts about the evil RIAA! :) Thanks again for the insight.

    3. Re:I was in the exercise... by hostyle · · Score: 0

      Doug. Get back to work!

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    4. Re:I was in the exercise... by mvea · · Score: 1

      I was part of the West Point team back in 2001's CDX when we won the first Director's Trophy. Unfortunately, I have the disappointing duty of letting you know that the Army will completely squander your skills and abilities once Human Resources Command (HRC) starts blindly filling roster vacancies with bodies. The NSA was even trying to transfer service obligations for key participants from the '01 CDX ... but the Army put a stop to that by stamping the effort out with an old boot of lockstep tradition and red tape.

      HRC Continues to Fail

      --
      When you understand your disbelief in other gods, then you will understand my disbelief in yours.
  13. Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon could do it... by AHuxley · · Score: 1
    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon could do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MacGuyver could do it with a paperclip, a rubber band and a post-it note.

  14. The Army's network scored the highest by crack_vial · · Score: 1

    Nice job guys! I have seen a lot of air force cyber talk, but not much coming out of the Army. Good work.

  15. ENDEX by sciop101 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Every agency/party involved in the exercise will publish an ENDEX (End of Exercise) report.

    IF Asked AND IF Unclassified, the agency/party MAY provide a copy of the ENDEX.

    Contact the Acadamies, NSA, even the Departments of Defense, Army, Air Force, Navy.

    ENDEX's have event logs, referee notes, exercise build and teardown plans....

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  16. Re:Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "kids that go there are the top 2% of the nation. Also, did I also mention that many of the the US best leaders came from West Point"

    Oh please, they all say that - the USNA, USAFA, even the USCGA. Not to mention that MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Melon, et al contend that they get the best of the best. I have worked with managers and engineers that graduated from various military academies; other than an inflated sense of patriotism and an intolerance for dissent, these people are no different from any other college.

    As a former Marine, I have had to contend with more than one arrogant "ring knocker".

    The military officer is the last of the elitist blue-bloods left in American society. The military NCO is the last of the true patriots that somehow just find a way to get it done.

  17. Re:Absolutely NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the NSA, like the CIA, are outside of the DOD. They typically work together, and many of the CIA agents are ex-dod. In fact, most of the NSA were never military, though that may change as time goes on. What? You're wildly incorrect, as evidenced here and quoted here.

    True, I'm sure there are many civilian employees at the NSA, just like there are many civilian employees on any Army base. For example, the folks who work at the cafeteria in most Army bases I've been to are usually not enlisted. I imagine that the same is true for most of the NSA's mathematicians; I don't know a lot of mathematicians who would be interested in going through Basic Training ;) That doesn't make the NSA any less of a military organization, though -- they still take their orders from the Secretary of Defense, just like the Army and the Navy and the Air Force.

    In contrast, the CIA is a separate, standalone agency. They take their orders from the President, and Congress, or something like that. Things get a little more muddy when you consider that the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all those other agencies are all coordinated by the Director of National Intelligence, but that's more or less the way things work (I think :).
  18. Curious by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    Biggest question is, did they allow you to use your own tools, or did they just let you use divining rods.

    Sort of ignorant on their part, that they would expect you to keep security on one of the most critical networks in the world and not have proper tools.

    Example: image the drive, make it read only, no execute and use tools like rkhunter, and many other programs to see what is running on the system under test.

    To me, having a compromised machine on a military network would get it a instant pulled plug, and a backup brought into play, with major lockdowns on network communication. Considering you can let the genie out of the bottle and not put it back in, in a very short time.

    1. Re:Curious by Pinb4ll · · Score: 4, Informative

      The tools we used were Nagios for service verification on an external computer (just to make sure we saw what the scorers saw, so we didn't lose points due to their slow network) and one box running Snort through a one way cable. We weren't allowed to let Snort block things, but it let us know who was doing what, allowing us to send up a request to the graders to block the IP. As for checking the untrusted boxes, we were able to run whatever we wanted on them. The root kit that we missed we simply didn't find in the mess of everything else.

  19. There is no cleaning a rootkit by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you detect malware installed on your system, wipe and reinstall. Always! There is no "cleaning".

    Probably wasn't possible given the parameters of the test, but they tried to clean a rootkit and got the predictable result.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:There is no cleaning a rootkit by dw604 · · Score: 1

      How hard can it be to secure a system -for real-? They could have done it with the right tools. Spybot S&D has a nice resident malware scanner and system settings change monitor. Combine that with an in and outgoing firewall program and a few other tools (alert with parent process id every time a file is written?) and you should be able to trace every last bit of a trojan.

    2. Re:There is no cleaning a rootkit by Pinb4ll · · Score: 1

      It all comes down to the rules of the exercise: those items weren't allowed to be installed during the actual exercise time, so they had to be removed after the prep was done.

    3. Re:There is no cleaning a rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, wiping the box is the 'best practice' for dealing with malware, especially rootkits. Speaking as someone who battled the rootkit for 8 hours on the second day, it wasn't quite that easy. We were not allowed to just wipe the system.

      The attacks were spawned under the explorer.exe process; we changed the Windows shell to notepad.exe and changed the permissions on the executable to "deny all" and ran what we called "notepad OS" for the rest of the exercise. We were still able to perform any needed functions on the computer between the task manager's "run" functionality and the ability to right click on anything within the "open" dialog box and choose "run." So while we couldn't officially clean the machine, we were able to prevent it from calling back to the NSA.

    4. Re:There is no cleaning a rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See CreateRemoteThread on how that rootkit managed to hook itself into the explorer.exe process.

      You could have used something really simple like Process Explorer (Sysinternals) to put the evil thread inside the explorer.exe process to sleep (note that this doesn't remove/destroy the thread, it just puts it to sleep so that it is 'frozen in time'). This has the advantage of allowing you to continue the cleanup without having to worry about another process trying to rehook explorer.exe with a bad thread (unless you want to monitor API calls to find out what other process/thread was trying to protect the thread in explorer.exe). Most rootkits are designed to check if their processes/threads are intact and if not, the rootkit will spawn itself again. A sleeping process/thread is often considered by rootkits to be in a perfectly working condition, thus preventing a respawn.

    5. Re:There is no cleaning a rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Reboot off a cd, and re-write any raw hhttccc that has changed, whilst piping the changed sectors off to somewhere else for later analysis. It has taken a while for twits to forget what DOS based GHOST once did.

      Now one assumes that the rookkit, from a class 1 adversary, has not already modified the bios, or flashed a trojan helper in a video or network card, or even the hard disk itself - even a printer can have its network card flashed.

      Looking at say, Vista, or SELINUX, it is clear that 'how' to tie things down is still a work in progress.

      Also needed is a program to take a full system dump, and do a before/after difference listing -not sure if such a tool exists outsize ZOS, but PC based security has a looong way to go.

    6. Re:There is no cleaning a rootkit by galen · · Score: 1

      True, but they broke the first rule right out of the gate: never let someone else pack your bags.

      As I understand it, the teams were handed a group of fully loaded virtual machines and told to put them on their network and then secure and defend them. No admin in their right mind would ever do this if they're at all concerned with security.

      The 'rootkit' mentioned in the article apparently was an executable present on the VMs at the start and not found until its network traffic was sniffed. Kudos to them for finding it, but on a network built for security it would have never been there in the first place.

      As a rule, you always start clean and install only what's necessary to provide whatever services are needed. When a security compromise is found, you wipe the system clean and start over.

      But, all of this discussion is a bit irrelevant since this was ultimately not an exercise in building secure networks, but rather an exercise in watching how defenders of an insecure network will respond to a series of attacks.

    7. Re:There is no cleaning a rootkit by symbolset · · Score: 1

      As a rule, you always start clean and install only what's necessary to provide whatever services are needed. When a security compromise is found, you wipe the system clean and start over.

      But, all of this discussion is a bit irrelevant since this was ultimately not an exercise in building secure networks, but rather an exercise in watching how defenders of an insecure network will respond to a series of attacks.

      Agreed. In fact, I mentioned this in my post...

      Probably wasn't possible given the parameters of the test, but they tried to clean a rootkit and got the predictable result.

      This was previously confirmed by an A.C. claiming to be a participant in the exercise. I'm sure the participants knew the best practice and would have done it the correct way if it were permitted within the rules of the test. It's still important to remind slashdot readers what the best practice is, especially in the context of a thread about cleaning rootkits like this one. That's why my comment was so highly rated - not because it was new, but because it was an important reminder.

      Nearly every malware detector on the market offers a "clean infection" feature of some sort. People need to know it's a lie.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  20. Re:Fantastic by earthforce_1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The USMA academy is some of the best of the best. Meaning, these guys have to be appointed by two state senators to even apply... Meaning they have to be politically well connected.
    --
    My rights don't need management.
  21. Go Army by Hasai · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those West Pointers usually make pretty good officers. Or, at least they do after a few SFCs drag the new looie behind the barracks and beat all the West Point hogwash out of them.
    ];)

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  22. Rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious why the rules didn't allow snort to block things. Was there a specific reason given?


    Along the same lines, were there other tools not allowed or "crippled" (meaning not able to use some particular (or some range) or functionality?


    I think this is a pretty interesting question. Remember the movie Russia House? The main part of the plot was the discussion over how dangerous lists of questions were--they indicated what you didn't know and what you were focusing on. Generally, I believe the same applies to rules in a game.

    1. Re:Rules? by Pinb4ll · · Score: 3, Informative

      It all came down to the scenario. Built into the game was a notional 'cost' for different network items, making certain items prohibitively expensive. It mainly came down to the semantics of the rules, but the costs were going to be looked at for next year. The overall effect was eliminating the use of some best practices simply because of cost.

    2. Re:Rules? by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      I'm also curious why you had to "clean" a known compromised client. In most real world cases, "cleaning" would involve wiping the client clean and re-imaging. If the system had critically important data on it. The drive would be put as a secondary drive in a server with the system partition mounted read only or maybe boot to a recovery dvd and clean only the data with a fine grained comb over a period of time.

      Seems they imposed some "bad practices" on the defense team .

  23. Been There, Done That by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I invited NSA to run their red team against a classified intelligence network I ran back in the '90s. That's back when nearly every security tool was of your own creation. I was running SunOS 4.1.3, so at least I had a little help from OS security options.

    They had to come on-site to break us and they identified only one finding for which we didn't already have fix planned or in work. We considered that a raging success!

    The most embarrasing moment was when they broke the System Security Officer's password with an expanded dictionary attack. I got to kid her about that for months! "How's your password today?" "Strong, dammit!"

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  24. Re:Fantastic by LurkerXD · · Score: 2, Funny

    The USMA academy is some of the best of the best. Meaning, these guys have to be appointed by two state senators to even apply... That is why the kids that go there are the top 2% of the nation. I don't know...my sister makes me wonder about what the hell our tax dollars are financing...
  25. Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So the US government is creating a generation of black hat security experts: pros who define the cutting edge of hostile attacks on infosystems. That's all right and proper as part of the US military, the necessary maintenance of infiltration and coercive force that is required to operate as a last resort of public policy produced under the Constitution, like any military power.

    Leaving aside the separate and important issue of Congressional and other oversight to ensure the military crackers operate always under proper law and in the formal national interest, what happens to these people when they leave government service? We'll have created dangerous people whose careers are dedicated to acts that are illegal, and threaten national (and private) security if they are used in attacks outside the proper military context. Sure they're like any other armed soldier, whose many other developed skills are valuable in many contexts not violence. But the fact is that many retired soldiers do find their skills and interests best fit a police or private security career, and even as paramilitary mercenaries - some of which private armies are emerging as serious threats to world stability in its balance of power. Military crackers are different, though: there is little or no role in non-military police, and virtually no legal role in private employ cracking anything.

    We are creating an army of high-end crackers who will find themselves leaving the military, and available for hire by the legions of private employers whose use of them to crack systems is mostly illegal, or even acts of war.

    We should consider how to track these people and their later activities. Working to secure and to test secure systems with permission of their owners is a valuable asset to keeping us all safe, whether as national service or in private employment. But leaving lots of them floating around loose practically guarantees that at least some of them will find jobs illegally cracking systems without the owners' permission, to do crimes, or perhaps even working for foreign militaries running attacks without coordination with proper US foreign policy, perhaps against our allies, perhaps against us, perhaps even just destabilizing some balance worked out among our enemies.

    We are creating many serious potential threats, as part of our programme to reduce and eliminate threats. Part of that programme should be minimizing the increased threat we're creating with them. There's got to be a way to help these people continue their careers with the most freedom, which will overall increase security (and their personal benefit) that doesn't let some few people turn against their training (and likely oaths to "be good").

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Register the Trainees by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 1

      At this writing Parent is deemed "Flamebait" - curious, that, I find the concerns quite valid, they do keep tabs on Spy assets. They DO shoot horses, don't they? :-)
      Being naive is not an excuse.
      For those of you scoring at home (and those of you alone) it's accustom to giving every man/woman an AK-47 to take home in a land of mercenaries.
      Loose cannons (canons too), indeed.

      The Army's got chops. I'm just glad that after 10 years, or so, they've finally joined the fray.

      This is starting to get interesting.

      --
      ~hylas
    2. Re:Register the Trainees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mistaken in what you think the service academies are teaching. They are not teaching "black hat" security expert techniques. They are not teaching OFFENSIVE Information Security. The curricula are strictly DEFENSIVE in nature. They aren't being taught to "crack" anything. They are being taught best practices on how to defend against such information security attacks. So why the hell should they be tracked? A person who takes the Certified Ethical Hacker course has more exposure to hacking tools than the cadets do.

    3. Re:Register the Trainees by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FUD.

      The military has been graduating experts in the "black arts"* since the inception of organized militaries. Guys who know basic hand to hand combat, firearms skills. Advanced soldiers learn even more technical and lethal combat skills. I'm not saying that every soldier is a killing machine, but that is what they train for. Black hat network uber hacker on the "outside" a real threat? As veterans, aren't they already sort of registered? They've got their DNA on file. What more do you want from those who have served? Constant loyalty tests?

      Good network security shouldn't be through obscurity, so even the "black hats" should know as much as the "white hats".

      *I using the term "black arts" hear to refer to all those things which are generally forbidden except when in a war zone, killing, breaking things, etc. I won't bore you with a list. Granted, the killing is supposed to be reserved for combatants.

    4. Re:Register the Trainees by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Honestly, these types of skills get you good jobs at large companies or the ability to work for yourself and earn a comfortable living.
      Any skilled hacker who is also good at understanding the needs of business and has good communications skill will not be without good ethical job prospects for the foreseeable future.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    5. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, I noted that. But crime pays. The economy, already pretty stagnant or bad, is going rapidly down the toilet. Jobs illegally cracking systems will decrease slower, perhaps even rise as their bosses get comparatively more stable and profitable compared to the failing legal economy. But even in good times, there are plenty of bad guys with money to buy "evil henchmen" who can outbid the good guys with ethical jobs.

      The point is that we're sending lots of potential threats out there. The programme whose value is minimizing those threats should at least be tracking those new threats it creates, to help ensure they don't turn against that original mission that created them.

      As just one example, I'll note that Binladen's Qaeda was created by the NSA/CIA/Pentagon to "do bad things for a good reason", and that blew back seriously enough to outbalance practically all the good it ever did us. We need to at least keep account of what we're creating before it becomes extremely expensive to do so retroactively, searching for some virtual cave out on the Internet somewhere.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is Binladen's Qaeda "FUD"? As blown out of proportion and abused as their 9/11/2001 (and 1993) attacks have been, we all should surely have learned at least the lesson that creating attackers can blowback when they're left unattended in a world of rich potential enemies.

      Just registering "our" crackers' DNA isn't going to do anything to ensure they don't blow back on us. I'm talking about tracking these people's careers, probably combined with a referral program to help them get jobs assisting legitimate employers. Like I said, people with physical violence skills have lots more legitimate options in more fully mature private security and police industries than there are for legitimate crackers. The renta/cop job market is much larger than the high-caliber criminal job market, but the market for "white hats" is not nearly as much bigger than the market for "black hats". Blowback is a proven problem for the NSA, and Binladen is neither an isolated or vanishingly rare example. We should keep these dangerous people in the system, even if just for easily finding them for investigation later, as part of the balance we use to mitigate the risks we create, not just the ones that come knocking from the outside.

      BTW, white hat hackers are the "good guys", securing systems, even when they're cracking them to test the security. "Black hats" are bad guys, whether or not they are actively cracking a system, or perhaps just securing a "bad" system.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Register the Trainees by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      But it seems that your are saying that for "national security" all government crackers (those employed by the government to crack targeted networks) should be kept on a tight leash, even post employment, because they have knowledge and skills which cannot be obtained in the private sector.

      Is that what you are saying?

    8. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about tracking the cadets being trained in nothing but defensive methods. I'm talking about the NSA staff who are being trained to attack the academies' systems. Those NSA trainees are learning a lot more serious stuff, new stuff, that can't be learned in a publicly offered course. Including specific experience cracking the latest military security coming out of the academies.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Not quite to the degree you probably mean by "tight leash", which implies control and not just registering updated employment info.

      And not necessarily all government crackers, perhaps just the ones trained in techniques created by (or for) the government. Though keeping tabs of some degree, even if just an initial registration with their skillset and a risk analysis, would be worthwhile. These stakes are high, these people are extraordinarily (by definition) more risky than the general public, and we already have good reason to track some people in the public who we know pose risks. Since the cost of tracking these risks we create would be low if conducted sensibly, its risk mitigation cost:benefit analysis is good.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Register the Trainees by Hasai · · Score: 1

      ....We'll have created dangerous people whose careers are dedicated to acts that are illegal, and threaten national (and private) security if they are used in attacks outside the proper military context. .... Um, you mean like infantry?

      ....We should consider how to track these people and their later activities. .... Well, we could just go the cheap and easy route and just kill them when they are no longer of use, like many Third World tin-pots do with their burned-out Intelligence agents.

      Or, we could do with them what we do with all the rest of our military and Intelligence veterans; accept their word of honor. I know this "honor" thing may be a hard concept for someone like you to accept into your world-view, but, believe it or not, it actually works.

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    11. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      "Someone like me" would have read my post and seen where I noted how these NSA crackers aren't like infantrymen. But for soemone like you, who thinks I should dignify a response like "maybe we should just kill them" when all I suggest is tracking their post-government employment, I'll also point out that we require people to register weapons like infantry are trained to operate, when we allow private ownership of those weapons at all. Since these people's weapons are skills with commodity hardware, all we can do to mitigate the blowback risk is to track what they're doing with those skills, which will deter most blowback and keep us prepared for when there is some.

      We don't just take the word of our most skilled "ex" spies - we track them. Someone like you, an idiot who obviously knows nothing about security personnel management or blowback, thinks that spies can all be merely trusted on their honor, and that $billions in intel programmes can't spare a few $million to mitigate the extra risk the original programmes create.

      Or we could just kill them. If we were an obnoxious fool like you, we might even consider that is the only alternative to doing nothing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Register the Trainees by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      I find your suggestion more than a little unethical. The US justice system presumes innocence - by placing undue pressure on a certain segment of society simply because they are well educated in a certain area violates the principles of our Bill of Rights (if not the letter). "Tracking" them may be appropriate as long at it is no more intrusive or extensive than that used to keep track of US nuclear physicists, but anything else is simply reprehensible.

    13. Re:Register the Trainees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA "trainees?" The NSA usually takes folks who already have some sort of experience in penetration testing (whether it's web, OS, perimeter, etc.). Such jobs are not usually open to the general public, because such jobs require a skill set and a background check sufficient to get a security clearance. And let's not forget the extensive background investigations these folks get in order to join the NSA and get a security clearance, or that they are investigates as often as every 5 years, or that they have to take polygraphs randomly any time in those 5 years between investigations. Such a cycle usually weeds out the bad apples (no system is perfect).

      To suggest that such people need to be tracked to ensure their continued "behavior" is ludicrous in the extreme. Do you honestly think that suggesting such a thing "for our protection because they are skilled in doing things that can cause a great deal of damage" is really anything but the fear mongering it is? Replace "NSA trained security researcher" with .. oh.. I don't know, "ex-Ranger" or "nuclear scientist" or "biological nerve agent researcher" or "bomb technician" and it's no different. You are basically advocating that a person so skilled and deemed trustworthy enough that the NSA would hire them is also dangerous enough that their activities need to be monitored or tracked for the rest of their lives.

      That is just STUPID.

    14. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      All I'm talking about is that they use a Federal registry as they change employers. Which should also work to help place them in jobs they like that also help protect us, which is why they were trained that way in the first place.

      Government service includes all kinds of compromises in exchange for certain kinds of training. Nuclear physicists are just one precedent for mitigating the risks we create by inventing new destructive techniques and training people who can blow back on us.

      There's nothing unethical about that, so long as the tracking is accepted as a condition of the training. What's unethical is to create these risks and then release them into the wild without taking even the basic measures to minimize them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Nuclear scientists are tracked currently. NSA staff and trainees, like Binalden and his Qaeda, are known to blow back on us, and we should have learned by now that we need to take steps to minimize these risks we create.

      These NSA staff are being trained to attack secure systems like these academic targets, just as the academies and their cadets are being trained in securing from such attacks.

      Your argument is ignorant, stupid and obnoxious. From an Anonymous Coward, to boot. Just sit down and shut up, and you might learn something.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:Register the Trainees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.. you are either really deluded, or really ignorant. I can't tell, because the tin foil around your head is blocking my mind reading equipment.

      "The NSA staff" are not "being trained to attack secure systems like these academic targets." These systems were not secure FOR A REASON. It was a TRAINING EXERCISE. The "Secure Systems" these academies created were based off of an NSA directive, conducted on an isolated network, and had specific rules of engagement and limitations. I should know, I read the NSA directive and participated in the exercise as part of the opposition force (thus the posting as an AC). These systems were not secure. THAT WAS THE POINT. The point of the exercise was to see HOW THE CADETS COULD SECURE THEM. There were only 4 days in the exercise.

      "NSA Staff" are KNOWN to blow back on us? I'm sorry. I must have missed the reports that stated that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were TRAINED by the NSA. But please, continue to make up "facts" to bolster your position. It just goes to show how much your position lacks in the first place. According to all accounts, Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, which is a completely different and separate entity from the NSA.

      As I said, any person skilled in some field of endeavor that can cause grievous harm is a DANGER to the US, but you don't seem to be advocating tracking all of them. A disgruntled bomb EOD technician is just as dangerous, because s/he has the knowledge to make an explosive device AND knows the ways someone would use to disarm it, so would be more creative in ensuring it can be detonated on command. A biological nerve agent researcher has far more potential to wreak havoc an cause casualties, some of which could destroy entire populations. A former Ranger has much more capacity for destruction and causing mayhem.

      You conveniently ignored those examples. If you advocate tracking one group, you should be advocating tracking any such group that has the potential to cause harm. Why aren't you?

      Perhaps you should just stop fear mongering, before you reveal yourself to be an even bigger idiot than you already have.

    17. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      NSA blowback

      Fuck you, Anonymous spyloving coward.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:Register the Trainees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, yes.. the refuge and last resort of the logically-challenged: Name calling and redirection from the argument at hand. So, essentially, what you are saying is that you have no counter to my arguments, and thus must resort to name calling and "oh, look over there!" tactics in an attempt to sidestep any responsibilities for a logical response.

      Thank you for showing what a completely baseless position you've espoused.

      All is right with the world once again.

    19. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, you denied that there was any NSA blowback, and it was trivial to point to lots of it - that we even know of.

      And when you denied it, you were such a rude asshole that you deserve a beating - return insults are just countering in a language you should understand.

      And now that you are calling black white, and projecting your own defects onto my legitimate arguments, demonstrating all you want to do is bitch, not get at the truth of the risks of these NSA programmes that we're escalating, you're toast. Bitch.

      Goodbye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    20. Re:Register the Trainees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow... .just ... wow.. the articles you referenced in your quick and dirty google search had nothing at ALL to do with the so-called "blowback" of what you refer to as NSA assets that turned.

      In fact, most of them referenced the suing of the NSA for warrantless wiretapping that was directed by the White House, and has NOTHING to do AT ALL with your position. I fail to see how this is relevant at all to your argument and position that "NSA trained government crackers should be tracked."

      You still haven't addressed the points I've made in my last three posts. Failing to respond to an opposing point is usually seen as a failure to argue your position.

      See, what you have here is an incoherence of argument. You lack evidence for your position. You try to bring in ANYTHING that is remotely related to the NSA and point to it as support, when in reality it just shows your disjointedness. Are you SURE that tinfoil hat isn't on too tight?

      I'll also point out that I'm not the one "bitching." That would be you. Despite what you think, you aren't winning anything in this "argument."

      So who's the "bitch" now?

    21. Re:Register the Trainees by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      Nuclear physicists are just one precedent for mitigating the risks we create by inventing new destructive techniques. You have made my point for me - just because nuclear physicists have dangerous knowledge doesn't mean we have people tailing them around the country. Knowledge can be used for good or bad and sanctioning them for having such knowledge is no way to act. College chemistry may as well be bombmaking class, but we don't invade the privacy of all chem majors just because they might be a threat.

      We once again come back to how far you are willing to go. I will first note that having a person sign a "release" does not give you the authority to remove their rights under the Constitution - the courts have previously ruled that contracts which violate Constitutional rights are unenforceable. However, if you are talking about non-intrusive actions then you probably mean a contract. In this case, I will note that most contract violations would then require the government to file a civil suit (since at the moment there is no law in place relevant to this issue) for breach of contract. The most that can be done under breach of contract is an obligation for the party to pay damages - of which there are none.

      Therefore, the obligation for these trainees to follow your restrictions is exactly none. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are calling for, but your description thus far has been far too vague to analyze accurately.
    22. Re:Register the Trainees by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I didn't say tailing them around the country or invading their privacy. I have further clarified more specifically what I'm talking about, though it's the principle of somehow mitigating the risk we're creating in them rather than any specific implementation that I'm talking about. I said that they should register their employers with a government office that also helps place them in good jobs that also protect Americans. Since I'm repeating myself, I'm done in this thread.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  26. Which trainees? by Pinb4ll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly which trainees do you plan on registering, the students or the red team? I think you are missing the overall point of the exercise. There was no offensive side to the students networks, only setting up the services and try to protect them. The red team - those that the NSA already employs - were the only ones attempting to break in. The academies' jobs were to simply keep them out. I can see your point about keeping track of those who have been part of the NSA, but I would be willing to bet that is already taken care of.

  27. Heaven forbidden by RealGrouchy · · Score: 5, Funny

    But only the NSA, with its arsenal of waivers, loopholes, special authorizations (and heaven knows what else)... No, Heaven doesn't have the security clearance to access that information.

    - RG>
    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  28. Academy academics by identity0 · · Score: 1

    Anyone here know how good the CS/IT/EE curriculum in the military academies are? And do those members usually end up deployed where their expertise is useful?

    I've heard the Air Force is the leading branch for network stuff, so I'm surprised the Army did well.

    1. Re:Academy academics by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've heard the Air Force is the leading branch for network stuff

      Let me guess - did an Air Force recruiter tell you that?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    2. Re:Academy academics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've heard the Air Force is the leading branch for network stuff, so I'm surprised the Army did well. Heh. In the exercise this year, the Air Force team actually had the worst performance of all. The Coast Guard Academy and the Merchant Marine Academy both put in better performances.
    3. Re:Academy academics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      West Point has won 5 years in a row at this time. The Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science is responsible for the event at the Military Academy. http://www.eecs.usma.edu

    4. Re:Academy academics by Daniel+Wood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The truth of the matter is that the Army generally has the least amount of fuckups when it comes to communications. This is because the Army curriculum is VERY methodical and almost reads like a checklist (in fact, we often use checklists and cut-sheets).

      I'm not saying the Army is any more intelligent than any other branch. We have some really dumb people. The Army trains so that the dumbest kid on the block can do the job perfectly, every time.

    5. Re:Academy academics by sgt.greywar · · Score: 1

      Frankly all of the uniformed services are terribly lacking in areas of tech expertise both in the area of intelligence services and signal (including networking and CS in general). 99% of all truly technical work in those areas is done by the "contractor corps" and not by the various uniformed servicemembers themselves. I was forced to learn more in my first month as a contractor than I was in a decade spent wearing the tree suit.

      It is very difficult to have high standards for training when the service don't wan't any member to be allowed to fail. Instead we just lower the bar some more and hire another contractor. this isn't a good thing and hopefully someone sane will eventually reverse the trend.

      Another part of this exercise was that the perimeter defense TLA was artificially taken out of the equation prior to the start of the exercise ths limiting the relism rather a lot (although that perimeter wouldn't have stopped the rootkit callback anyways).

      --
      Laborare Est Orare
  29. But -- by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    But the commercial tools, with the yearly support, and sending the men all off to be trained, Priceless

    Sorry above is a bit of a rant.

  30. Fairly common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I interviewed at NSA headquarters in Maryland, and I'm told by NSA engineers that such procedures are fairly common for ensuring the protection of United States networks from foreign adversaries. They do this sort of thing all the time; this was perhaps the first instance that was publicly known.

    By the way, the NSA facilities are unbelievably frightening. Just thought you all ought to know.

  31. Re:Fantastic by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
    I had absolutely zero political connections and I managed to get nominated (twice actually). I think it had more to do with my writing my congressman every year:

    - Hi... I'll be seeking a nomination from you in 3 years, here is what I have done to earn it.

    - Hi... I'll be seeking a nomination from you in 2 years, here is what I have done to earn it.

    - Hi... I'll be seeking a nomination from you in 1 years, here is what I have done to earn it.

    - Hi... I'll am seeking a nomination from you and here is what I have done to earn it.

    Worked for me...

    Also, the whole nomination process is pretty misunderstood. It is just a nomination - you still have to get an appointment (read: accepted). Each representative can pass on 10 names for each vacancy (and each rep can have five constituents at each academy at any one time). If you think about it, there are 435 representatives , 50 senators and a handful of presidential and vp nominations or about 500 nomination "sources". Since each class usually has around 1000 students (at each academy) that means that on average each nominating source only has 2 of their vacancies filled so on average they can forward 30 names to each academy each year.

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  32. Mod parent up "informative" by argent · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up "informative" only because there isn't "primary source" as an option. :)

  33. hehe, sweet by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    The NSA: Granted, they are all powerful and perhaps evil, but at least they on OUR SIDE. I don't like wars or conflict (I think they are outdated methods of resource allocation), but if shit hits the fan, we've got people that can and will defend us.

    I think that is good.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  34. Which is it? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
    "Legal limitations were a surprising obstacle to a realistic exercise. ...But only the NSA, with its arsenal of waivers, loopholes, special authorizations (and heaven knows what else) is allowed to take down a U.S. network."

    Which is it? Legal limitations or NSA not affected because of 'arsenal of waivers...'? I hate summaries like this with such an overt bias against anything the NSA does. Either they were legally limited, or they had a bunch of waivers...which is it? The sad thing is that this could have been a much more effective exercise without the unnecessary complexity introduced by the 1984-inspired Kooks amongst us.

  35. Re:Fantastic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I had absolutely zero political connections and I managed to get nominated (twice actually). I think it had more to do with my writing my congressman every year:

    ...

    Also, the whole nomination process is pretty misunderstood. It is just a nomination - you still have to get an appointment (read: accepted).

    So what you're saying is that you didn't actually accomplish anything of note? And that your anecdote is spectacularly useless?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  36. Re:Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a former Marine, I have had to contend with more than one arrogant "ring knocker".

    Many of the most arrogant assholes I ever ran into in Baghdad were Marines. I especially liked how they destroyed two battalions' network links by carelessly tearing down marked cabling. Their S3 later laughed it off like it was funny ... it sure is funny when 2000 soldier's lose half their C2.

  37. Re:Fantastic by BranMan · · Score: 1

    But wait, there's more. I seriously considered West Point, and talked to some folks about applying and getting an appointment. I was a finalist for the NMS at the time, so our reps basically told me "Don't worry about it, if I have to borrow a nomination and pay it back for the next ten years, you'll get one." So, they can even horse-trade them like picks at the drafts!

  38. Re:Fantastic by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

    no.... you still have to get a nomination - my point was that it isn't as difficult as many perceive. Getting the appointment is the real challenge.

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  39. Re:Fantastic by Helevius · · Score: 1

    You don't know what you're talking about. I am a military academy graduate and I had absolutely zero political ties.