Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Spoofed Top Officials' Identity To Mine NSA Secrets
schnell writes "As government investigators continue to try to figure out just how much data whistleblower Edward Snowden had access to, MSNBC is reporting that Snowden used his sysadmin privileges to assume the user profiles of top NSA officials in order to gain access to the most sensitive files. His sysadmin privileges also enabled him to do something other NSA users can't — download classified files from NSAnet onto a thumb drive. 'Every day, they are learning how brilliant [Snowden] was,' said a former U.S. official with knowledge of the case. 'This is why you don't hire brilliant people for jobs like this. You hire smart people. Brilliant people get you in trouble.'"
"Brilliant people get you in trouble.'"
More like "Brilliant people expose the trouble you're currently in".
The security-state here keeps saying "if you don't have anything to hide, then you don't need privacy"
Well, if the NSA weren't doing shit that warranted whistleblowers, they wouldn't have the problems they currently do.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
So, having a way to change your identity to another users is brilliant? All System Admins must be brilliant!
You either get brilliant or you get mildly capable. Smart people know they don't want to work in that environment. Brilliant people will take the job knowing they can use it to some kind of end. Mildly capable people handle requests and not much more, but are just happy to have a stable job in their field.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Umm, ok, now you have to be brilliant to "sudo su ".
This guy was a sysadmin. He had physical level access to the hardware. Anybody who is in that job and is competent can do what Snowden did. (or am I missing some as yet undisclosed salient detail?)
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
"This is why you don't hire brilliant people for jobs like this. You hire smart people. Brilliant people get you in trouble." -- a former U.S. official with knowledge of the case.
Um... no. What is described in TFA is not "brilliant" at all, but a necessary part of being a sysadmin: you have control over user profiles.
The fact that the "former official" does not seem to realize this does not lead us to conclude that Snowden was brilliant... but rather that the mentioned official was anything but.
The only thing that came to mind with the suggestion that they not hire brilliant people:
"An intelligence organization that fears intelligence? Historically, not awesome."
- Tony Stark
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
People with integrity are not going to be working for the NSA. Kinda runs counter to what they do.
Manning stole and leaked operational information that potentially put lives at risk by exposing agents in the field and/or operational plans in the field.
Except that in the Manning leak, the military or intelligence agencies have yet to point to a single agent or operation in the field that was stopped due to the leak. They've just repeatedly asserted this point without proof, and that means significant numbers of Americans believe them.
I am officially gone from
Technically they are not supposed to go immediately to the public. Military, Government, and DOD people are supposed to use the chain of command first. Unfortunately, this does not work in most cases since the chain of command in a corrupt organization is also corrupt. Numerous court cases and stories are to be found regarding how internal whistle blowers are treated (sometimes killed with their whole family, etc...)
What Snowden did in this case is correct. Not going public mind you, but going to journalists who are supposed to be working for the public's interests.
What I, and many others, find so interesting is that our media has become so corrupt that we have to have alternative news sources which hold the original 'credo of journalism' in mind when working. I'm sure if he turned the data over to the NY Post, he would have been in jail and the public would still have no knowledge.
Lengthy chain to get to the point, but the point is that he did not go "public". He went to journalists, and did so correctly in my never so humble opinion. Part of the journalism credo is to determine what to release to the public in order to present the story while protecting the Government.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This isn't about competence or incompetence. It's about putting as negative a spin as possible on Snowden.
Float a lot of trial balloons, make sure negative things get out there via anonymous sources, even if rebutted the next day, then the "traitor" contingent can forever quote the negative and leave the detailed rebuttals to others, which no one will read.
To wit: in this thread, Manning is excoriated as a traitor for releasing all the documents unredacted, but Manning did not - that was accomplished when professional journalists from the Guardian published the passphrase for an encrypted file.
You need to hire some of these "brilliant" people so that you don't get snowed by a Snowden. By all accounts he accomplished what he did by having incompetent management above him. This was a management problem, and one that you knew better about, or should have known better about - if you had some of those brilliant people who knew what they were doing in management!
A properly compartmented system doesn't have root.
A security manager (that doesn't have access to installation tools, network, operations or storage, but has lots of system activity logs)
A systems engineer (that doesn't have access to user files or security manager functions)
An operational staff (that doesn't have access to user files, security manager functions, OR installation tools)
A network engineer (that doesn't have access to any of the previous three).
And frequently, a storage engineer that doesn't have access to any of the previous 4).
Thus, separation of duty. Improper access always raises an alarm. A violation requires collusion between 3 or more people - MUCH easier to detect.
It is usually the security manager that authorizes new users. The operations staff may initiate the installation of those users - but it is still the security manager that enables them.
And yes, a storage engineer doesn't need access to user files - he may have his own files for testing/evaluation. But he can initiate load balancing that may cause user files to be relocated - but that does not give him access to the data.
I really liked the pace of the disclosures. First he discloses a few things, the officials come out and start spinning and making up lies for the public about what is really happening, then the next disclosure comes out, exposing exactly what they just lied and said wasn't happening.
That was just....masterful.
I can understand wanting to keep secrets, but there is no excuse for telling lies to the people. Its ridiculous that I or anyone can be charged for telling lies to the FBI, but, the politicians can't be charged with telling lies to us.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
And exactly when do you think this was different? When Walter Cronkite was alive? When Ogg told Grog what happened to Paris the other night?
Is this way, was this way, will always be this way.
I’m sorry, no. Things most definitely were NOT always like this. When Walter Cronkite told you “that’s the way it is,” you could believe that he was reporting as accurately as he could, using material gathered by some of the best investigative journalists in the business, and most importantly, with little or no thought to whether the news he was reporting would negatively affect or offend the corporate bosses at CBS. There was a reason he was called “the most trusted man in America,” because he literally was just that, continually ranked in polls for trustworthiness above presidents, clergymen, fellow pundits, you name it. You don’t get that kind of reputation unearned.
Hard to imagine today, but back then the networks genuinely competed against each other for viewers, and news departments quickly became the most prestigious part of that struggle. There was very little editorializing, and almost none that wasn’t clearly labeled as such. The networks simply didn’t try to spin things a certain way as we see now. I suspect enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine had a lot to do with that, certainly it seems like the long decline of the American media began soon after the FCC decided to do away with the FD, along with many other existing useful regulations, such as the ones preventing industry consolidation into exactly the kind of huge media conglomerates we have today. Those long forgotten regulations were perhaps a big part of why the media in those days was so much more trustworthy than what we have now, although I can‘t prove this.
The end result is that today when I access any of the big American news organizations, I no longer believe I am getting the best information possible. Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt and a dollop of serious consideration regarding the parent company’s corporate stance on a given issue. More and more I find myself having to look at overseas sources (BBC, etc) to get any real feel for how things truly stand. It’s a sad state of affairs, and one that is very hard to convey to those born and raised in post-Reagan America. The news media in those days was far from perfect, but for trustworthiness, believability, accuracy, and absence of pervasive editorial slant, it was in general far superior to anything existing today.