Slashdot Mirror


America Uses Stealthy Submarines To Hack Other Countries' Systems (washingtonpost.com)

When the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump asked Russia -- wittingly or otherwise -- to launch hack attacks to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails, it caused a stir of commotion. Russia is allegedly behind DNC's leaked emails. But The Washington Post is reminding us that U.S.'s efforts in the cyber-security world aren't much different. (could be paywalled; same article syndicated elsewhere From the report: The U.S. approach to this digital battleground is pretty advanced. For example: Did you know that the military uses its submarines as underwater hacking platforms? In fact, subs represent an important component of America's cyber strategy. They act defensively to protect themselves and the country from digital attack, but -- more interestingly -- they also have a role to play in carrying out cyberattacks, according to two U.S. Navy officials at a recent Washington conference. "There is a -- an offensive capability that we are, that we prize very highly," said Rear Adm. Michael Jabaley, the U.S. Navy's program executive officer for submarines. "And this is where I really can't talk about much, but suffice to say we have submarines out there on the front lines that are very involved, at the highest technical level, doing exactly the kind of things that you would want them to do."

The so-called "silent service" has a long history of using information technology to gain an edge on America's rivals. In the 1970s, the U.S. government instructed its submarines to tap undersea communications cables off the Russian coast, recording the messages being relayed back and forth between Soviet forces. (The National Security Agency has continued that tradition, monitoring underwater fiber cables as part of its globe-spanning intelligence-gathering apparatus. In some cases, the government has struck closed-door deals with the cable operators ensuring that U.S. spies can gain secure access to the information traveling over those pipes.) These days, some U.S. subs come equipped with sophisticated antennas that can be used to intercept and manipulate other people's communications traffic, particularly on weak or unencrypted networks. "We've gone where our targets have gone" -- that is to say, online, said Stewart Baker, the National Security Agency's former general counsel, in an interview. "Only the most security-conscious now are completely cut off from the Internet." Cyberattacks are also much easier to carry out than to defend against, he said.

32 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Pretty soon they'll use TiSP protocol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://archive.google.com/tis... And anyone with a sewer drain can be spied upon. Actually, they probably already have sewer eavesdropping.

  2. Underwater cables by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    The futurist in me wonders if they can latch onto a submarine cable, cut it, insert a passively recording hub, and leave with only having changed the impedance and signal time (a little) and caused a brief outage.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Underwater cables by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wouldn't cause a brief outage, if they did that during a scheduled downtime of the cable.

    2. Re:Underwater cables by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't even have to cut it, just bend the strands enough so the some leaks out the side of the glass.

      I've got a fiber tester here that does exactly that with normal fiber patch leads, and it can tell me which direction the light source is coming from, if there is modulated data on it, or if there is one of it's own light source ID modules on the end of the fiber.

      Super handy for fiber test work and only $1000. Imagine what you can get when you've effectively got an unlimited black ops budget.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    3. Re:Underwater cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The futurist in me wonders if they can latch onto a submarine cable, cut it, insert a passively recording hub, and leave with only having changed the impedance and signal time (a little) and caused a brief outage.

      The futurist in you is 45 years behind the times:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells

    4. Re:Underwater cables by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is exactly what they do. It probably does cause a brief outage for fiber, but not for copper.

      They have special subs for it. The summary seems pretty clueless. It has been widely reported for decades.

    5. Re:Underwater cables by pepsikid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As khallow said, they add the taps during scheduled downtime. They also add the taps during an outage. And you can imagine how easy it is to arrange for a trawler to "accidentally" drag it's anchor across the ocean floor. There is some risk of being detected by diagnostic equipment at either end of the cable, since they can determine the distance to the break, but if the trawler break and submarine tap are 10 miles apart, the sub should go unnoticed, and the difference in distance is within a margin of error.

    6. Re:Underwater cables by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't even have to cut it, just bend the strands enough so the some leaks out the side of the glass.

      This is exactly what they do. They have something like a diving bell that they can loop a submarine cable through and seal it. They can then transfer some technicians from the mother sub to the bell through an airlock where they can peel the armor off the cable, isolate individual fibers and wrap them around such optical couplers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Underwater cables by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's not get carried away with cutting cables, the idea is quite amusing when you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... so not just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Obviously hacking into the repeaters makes a lot more sense and is of course exactly what they do and that is with the cooperation of the companies involved, so the hacks go in as the cable is being laid. So at the repeater they of course copy data, delete data and more importantly inject data, think questionable attacks from questionable sources. Likely the hardware is permanently locked in place and they only maintain it when it fails.

      The catch with that is any claim they make about hacks is now questionable as they inherently can and will corrupt the evidence. We you set out to so publicly corrupt global infrastructure than you will no longer be believed for any claims you make that result from attacks on that infrastructure ie you are always the initial and most likely suspect for any attack. Much like the US Navy and it's policy of not declaring which vessels have nuclear weapons and which do not. Result is when ever a US naval vessels approaches a foreign country it is not just a naval vessel approaching but a first strike city destroying nuclear threat approaching and that is the US government approach when sending vessels upon that basis, they are in fact at that moment threatening the targeted nation with a first strike nuclear attack.

      It is really a messy, arrogant approach, factually the number one suspect in any cyder attack must always be the NSA/CIA, they have the greatest capability, they have declared their intent to dominate every other countries internet infrastructure and US laws claim that US government departments are not bound by other countries laws and are free to break them at any time for any reason.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Underwater cables by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always sneak in an grammatical error to annoy the anonymous cowards.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    9. Re:Underwater cables by darkmeridian · · Score: 2

      We have been doing this since the 1970s. Look up Operation Ivy Bells and you can read the book Blind Man's Bluff. The subs would install espionage devices that wouldn't require the cable to be cut. Or you would cut the cable at some shallow point pretending it was a trawler that made the cut accidentally, then you tap the deep water portion of the cable while the cable is down, then when the guys repair the cable, the characteristics would have been expected to change.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    10. Re:Underwater cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't even have to cut it, just bend the strands enough so the some leaks out the side of the glass.

      This is exactly what they do. They have something like a diving bell that they can loop a submarine cable through and seal it. They can then transfer some technicians from the mother sub to the bell through an airlock where they can peel the armor off the cable, isolate individual fibers and wrap them around such optical couplers.

      How do you know? are you there? have you seen it?

      Where does the data go? current industry practice is to run submarine cables at 192x100G. That's 19.2Tbit/s.

      Without a fiber backhaul from their underwater tap to a safe harbor for analysis, there is just no way to process that level of data.

      And for what purpose, all a country would have to do, is mandate that all it's teleports use symmetric encryption and all those expensive taps, and phantom backhaul network (which would cost more than the worlds existing submarine network, as it would have to be longer in total path length, and laid by submarines to be unknownabout) would be useless. Also the connection where the cable splits into 2 cables would be noticed when the cable operator hauls the cable on deck for inspection and repair.

    11. Re:Underwater cables by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      And if they use BI fiber, it'll break before it bends enough to leak. Also, the bend is detectable, but not in a detection war. A bend enough to leak light will cause a loss of about 3 dB. Do that in a human-possible time frame, and the management server will detect the sudden loss as a critical event. So the tappers will make a machine to bend it slowly over a week, and tap in over a time that the management servers won't recognize as a significant critical event.

  3. Again with this? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Plenty to dislike about Trump. But why keep making stuff up? He didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's email. He made a very tired joke (it's been made here and elsewhere for weeks) about maybe the Russians, if they can find her email in the stuff they already have, could turn it over to our FBI, who couldn't find most of what she deleted. Go after him for his abundant riches of nonsense, but don't make crap up. Makes this site look sillier than usual.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Again with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because as everyone saw with the Wikileaks DNC release, Democrats fund astroturfers to spread lies all around the internet. I wouldn't doubt the Republicans do it too, but the DNC ones are 100% proven. As more and more negative Hillary evidence is revealed, they only thing they can do is deflect and try to pin the blame on somebody else. Hence all the "evil Russians" stories this last week.

    2. Re:Again with this? by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, everything he ever said is a joke. Why can't people understand that?

      Because it's easier to go on about Trump then accept the reality of what Clinton has done so far with power.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:Again with this? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      It didn't say it was funny. But what it wasn't was a "call for the Russians to hack blah blah blah." Which you know.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Again with this? by Alomex · · Score: 4, Informative

      He made a very tired joke

      Nobody laughed when he first said it on a Tuesday, and at his first chances to clarify it he doubled down on it, it took until Thursday before he claimed was a joke. Here's what happened in between:

      From the Washington Post:

      1. Trump campaign officials never said he was joking on Wednesday. They mounted a robust defense, mind you, but they didn't say it was a joke.

      2. Trump doubled down. In a tweet after the comments exploded on social media, Trump sought to explain a little bit â" apparently suggesting he simply meant that the emails should be turned over to the FBI "if Russia or any other country or person has" them. Again, no mention of joking around.

      3. He said it twice. This wasn't a one-off quip in Trump's news conference on Wednesday. He initially said he hoped the Russians had the emails, and then he returned later to say that if they didn't have them, he hoped they would obtain them.

      4. A reporter gave him an out -- that he didn't take. NBC's Katy Tur, later in Wednesday's press conference, basically asked Trump twice if he was serious. In response, Trump indicated he had no qualms about, in Tur's words, "asking a foreign government â" Russia, China, anybody â" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Lastly, even though very clearly he wasn't joking, even as a joke this is wholly unpresidential. So to sum it up, he clearly wasn't joking and even under this absurd excuse concocted two days after the fact Trump still loses points with this one, As simple as that. And all around fscked up for him anyway you see it.

      But as Trump himself said, he could go and shoot someone in Times Square and his voters would still support him. That part he did get right.

    5. Re:Again with this? by Boronx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are going to destroy Trump with garbage because the American people are too stupid to reject him for the truly horrible things he's said and done.

      It's like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.

    6. Re:Again with this? by longk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Go watch his FULL UNEDITED press conference. He was asking for existing materials (if any) to be released. He was not asking anyone to go and hack them now.

      In case you didn't hear: Hillary deleted her e-mails and her server was handed over to the FBI. There's simply no way to hack those e-mails anymore. It's really not very hard to understand. They can only be released from existing materials, if those exist.

    7. Re:Again with this? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because it's easier to go on about Trump then accept the reality of what Clinton has done so far with power.

      Folks go on about Trump, because he's a bit of a loose canon.

      However, there is one good thing about a loose canon . . . it will clear the deck and this is something Washington DC badly needs. Clear the deck of the government.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Again with this? by Alomex · · Score: 3, Informative

      The felonies she committed didn't require intent,

      They do, you are missinformed. Mens rea is crucial in this case. Read it up.

      I'll vote for a clown over a known corrupt person any day.

      Trump is equally corrupt. Haven't you read about Trump university or his 1,300 lawsuits against him or the fact that is damn nearly impossible to find a business partner of his that wasn't screwed over by him? That the only people they could find that would say a good word about him in the convention were D listers and his children? that he spent the last eight years slandering Obama as a Kenyan muslim only to cry like a baby when he's challenged by tough questions from the press? Lying about supposed evidence of his citizenship that was never forthcoming? Trump oozes corruption.

    9. Re: Again with this? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, but security violations are criminal offenses.

      Seriously? You have the citations for any security violation being a criminal offense?

      But the "lock her up" mentality is maybe a bit extreme.

      It isn't just "lock her up, as Al Baldasaro, an advisor to Trump's campaign said, “Anyone that commits treason should be shot,” “I believe Hillary Clinton committed treason. She put people in danger. When people take confidential material off a server, you’re sharing information with the enemy. That’s treason.”

      Then again, I suppose this is just another thing that needs massaged until it doesn't say what it said, And I'm not certain that it is a good tactic for Trump to take at the moment. Now if I might bring up another case of White House level shennagins as a comparison, let us take the Iran Contra mess.

      In the 1980's direct intentional circumvention of the law was being practiced out of the White House. Oliver North was working on deals to have Isreal sell weapons to Iran, and have proceeds go to the Contras in Venezuela . In return, the Iranians were going to talk to terrorists in Lebanon who were holding some American citizens hostage. This complicated scheme was indeed selling weapons to an avowed enemy of the United States, and was indeed siphoning off proceeds to the Contras, an act prohibited by the Boland Amendment.

      Details are the Iranians got some 1000 TOW missiles and other weapons and parts.

      The cover was that Isreal would sell them the parts, then we'd replace them,

      Things went along swimmingly, until a airlift of weapons were gunned down in Nicaragua.

      As the wheels were falling off, Oliver North, and his secretary, Fawn Hall, started shredding documents specifically in order to eliminate the evidence of the illegal activities. Hall was caught smuggling classified documents under her clothing.

      In the end, Hall recieved immunity, North had his conviction overturned on a technicality, and Poindexter who was convicted, was pardoned by Bush 1, and Reagan invoked not recalling or it's equivalent at least 124 times during testimony..

      So if a bucket list of intentional illegal criminal activity resulted in essentially nothing, then it gets pretty hard to get spun up ofer what amounts to a security violation.

      Unless the political intent is to just make it seem like treason. Whic sorta pales in comparison to the documented shenanigans that went on before to no avail. There is that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Again with this? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Seriously, nice deflection try.

      What? Show me where he said that he "called for the Russians to hack" - what he said was he hoped they could find (by inference, in the stuff they'd already long since had - how are you not seeing this) the stuff that she'd deleted. Deleted: past tense. You know, as in: the only way to have them would be for the hacking to have occurred years ago. Are you really not understanding this? And, how is it a security issue involving clearance? Clinton assures us that the 30,000 messages she deleted were all about yoga classes and wedding plans, right? Regardless, she wiped those records out a long time ago. Nobody, including Trump, is or could be "calling on the Russians" to hack those messages - they DON'T EXIST ANY LONGER. So, are you clear on that now?

      And speaking of you not tolerating somebody making that sort of joke, enough that you'd fire them because they couldn't be trusted ... then you certainly are calling for Hillary Clinton to be barred from office, right? Because nobody with her history of casually storing above top-secret communications on a home computer, and then repeatedly lying about it, would ever pass a clearance review, let alone for access to the sort of ultra-secret stuff with which she was playing fast and loose.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:Again with this? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Given the US has a long history with secret informants (Watergate) and the walking out of data vs entering, staying undetected in and moving data from a network only to allow the ip range and tools used to be found?
      The interesting part is to listen to the comments.
      Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections (July 27, 2016)
      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
      "Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are,"
      For any group or nation to have the skills to enter a network, stay in, not be detected, exit with a lot of data and then get sloppy with something as simple as ip ranges, tools used seems strange.
      EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails (31 Jul 2016)
      http://www.breitbart.com/jerus...
      ..."surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community"...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:Again with this? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Plenty to dislike about Trump. But why keep making stuff up?

      Yeah, libtards and commies and socialists just make shit up, all out of whole cloth. Trump is just constantly being misinterpreted/

      Well, since I have a loyalist sucking at the Don's teat, I want you to explain exactly why the Veterns of Froeign Wars are in that group of people making shit up. Tell me EXACTLY what Trump said, and tell me EXACTLY why it was misinterpreted? Was it a joke about a Gold Star Mother? Hey that's pretty funny. Or was it the liberal media tricking him? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Do you accept the challenge? Use words, not just respout people are making shit up pussy way out. And in case you try th eecuse that I'm making this shit up, here is the link for you to astroturf. http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Ev... Here are their words. Fortunately Your man is on of th only people who needs constant reinterpretation. These are well chosen words that need no astroturfing.

      TO RIDICULE A GOLD STAR MOTHER IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS

      August 01, 2016

      WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump has a history of lashing out after being attacked, but to ridicule a Gold Star Mother is out-of-bounds, said the new national commander of the near 1.7 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Auxiliary. “Election year or not, the VFW will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression,” said Brian Duffy, of Louisville, Ky., who was elected July 27 to lead the nation’s oldest and largest major war veterans organization. “There are certain sacrosanct subjects that no amount of wordsmithing can repair once crossed,” he said. “Giving one’s life to nation is the greatest sacrifice, followed closely by all Gold Star families, who have a right to make their voices heard.”

      I'm really looking forward to your defense of Trump here.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  4. Trump Wants To Launch Hack Attacks by poity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I distinctly remember Trump having said that Russia should find Hillary's deleted emails -- the implication being that he believes, as many do, that her server had already been hacked -- and those emails only need to be found from within the FSB archives in which they're being kept. I distinctly don't remember Trump saying Russia should hack any server that is currently online, or even using the word "hack".

    But now, not only has this "Trump called Russia to hack Clinton" meme propagated, it's being treated no longer even as speculation but as an accepted truth that premises other stories. WTF?

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  5. Youa re not supposed to joke as a candidate by aepervius · · Score: 2

    Well at least not that sort of joke. There are certain joke which makes relationship with other country difficult, or makes you look like a fool, and you should avoid as a candidate for the highest office. this is one of those. If you want to see others , see Borris Johnson. Note that nominating such a person may be a political sign , a finger shown to group of people, I leave it up to slashdotter to decide which groups. But as a candidate for POTUS you should pretty damn fucking check what sort of joke you do, and joke about catastrophe or attacks (e.g. 9/11, pearly harbor), jokes about foreign president or countries, or jokes about attacks (be it physical or cyber) are certainly not something one should do.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Youa re not supposed to joke as a candidate by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting for the day when President Trump jokes that he just launched a nuclear strike on Russia.

      He'll probably then blame the Russian government for not realising it was a joke. Via the emergency broadcasting system, from his bunker underneath what remains of Washington.

    2. Re:Youa re not supposed to joke as a candidate by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting for the day when President Trump jokes that he just launched a nuclear strike on Russia.

      He'll probably then blame the Russian government for not realising it was a joke. Via the emergency broadcasting system, from his bunker underneath what remains of Washington.

      Why wait? Reagan made that particular joke decades ago.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  6. He didn't ask anyone to launch hack attacks by longk · · Score: 2

    Hillary's e-mails have already been deleted. No "hack attack" is going to reveal them. The suggestion that a hack is wanted to reveal the e-mails (made by the press, not Trump) is plain ignorant.

    If you go back and look at Trump's speech he wasn't anyone asking to go and hack. He simply asked that if someone has those e-mails already (from older hacks), to please share them.

  7. Re: Slashdot's in the tank for Hillary by Boronx · · Score: 2

    I don't approve of Hillary's foreign policy. It's just better than the alternative available. Trump doesn't understand that the US nuclear umbrella keeps Japan from wanting to get nukes, and that's very good thing. Trump doesn't understand that NATO security guarantees prevents an arms race in Europe. Any student of history knows that's a very good thing. Trump doesn't understand that banning Muslims will not prevent terrorism, but will hurt our image, tramples over our founding philosophical concepts, and probably will promote terrorism.

    He doesn't get any of these basic concepts. He's too dumb to be president. Heck, he's famous for this piece of advice he gave to Reagan's nuclear negotiators: arrive late to the meeting, then the first thing you do is say "Fuck you!" to the Russians. That will throw them off their game.

    As if the Russian negotiators were small time businessmen from Peoria with dollar signs in their eyes.

    I actually think Hillary is a bit too dumb to be president, but she's way smarter than Trump.