Slashdot Mirror


How The US Will Likely Respond To Shadow Brokers Leak (dailydot.com)

blottsie writes: The NSA and FBI are both expected to investigate the leak of NSA-linked cyberweapons this week by an entity calling itself the Shadow Brokers, experts with knowledge of the process tell the Daily Dot. However, multiple experts say any retaliation by the U.S. will likely remain secret to keep the tactical advantage. Meanwhile, Motherboard reports that some former NSA staffers believe the leak is the work of a "rogue NSA insider." "First, the incident will be investigated by the National Security Agency as it tracks down exactly what went so wrong that top-secret offensive code and exploits ended up stolen and published for the world to see," reports Daily Dot. "An FBI counterintelligence investigation will likely follow, according to experts with knowledge of the process. [...] Following the investigation, the NSA and other entities within the United States government will have to decide on a response." The response will depend on a lot of things, such as whether or not an insider at the NSA is responsible for the breach -- a theory that is backed by a former NSA staffer and other experts. "The process is called an IGL: Intelligence Gain/Loss," reports Daily Dot. "Authorities suss out a pro and con list for various reactions, including directly and publicly blaming another country. [Chris Finan, a former director of cybersecurity legislation in the Obama administration and now CEO of the security firm Manifold Technology, said:] 'Some people think about responding in kind: A U.S. cyberattack. Doing that gives up the asymmetric response advantage you have in cyberspace.' Finan urged authorities to look at all tools, including economic sanctions against individuals, companies, groups, governments, or diplomatic constraints, to send a message through money rather than possibly burning a cyberwar advantage. Exactly if and how the U.S. responds to the Shadow Brokers incident will depend on the source of the attack. Attribution in cyberwar is tricky or even impossible much of the time. It quickly becomes a highly politicized process ripe with anonymous sources and little solid fact."

16 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Easy. by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) there will be a witch hunt.
    The nsa will investigate its own employees against its already existing psych profile sheets to see who is the most likely to have been motivated to steal the data. Then they will set up an internal emtrapment scenario to catch the leaker red handed. They will then be charged with federal espionage, and put into prison.

    2) the same investigation will sift out accomplices and contacts. The trap will not be sprung until positive id has been made on all members of the cell.

    3) the nsa will not directly move against the other members of the cell. Instead it will monitor, and selectively leak false intel to this cell, making it ineffectual, or worse, countereffectual to the foriegn government operating it.

    4) if deemed useful to do so, the cell will be infiltrated with a new "insider", who will actually be collecting and analyzing the cells instructions to better predict and respond to the foriegn power's activities.

    Really, this is not hard.

    1. Re:Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry for my sloth but....am I correct in understanding that the NSA knew about security holes in important aspects of our cyber infrastructure, and rather than report them so they could be fixed, they sat on them so they could use them "to protect us"?

      They knowing left these holes open, with no idea (nor any way of knowing) whether or not any criminals were exploiting these holes already, to our detriment?

      I'd say they aren't just failing to do their job, they are knowingly doing the opposite of their job. Their conscious inaction put at-risk those they are supposed to protect, is therefore unethical, and constitutes an enormous breach of trust given their position of authority.

      They should all burn. I don't give a shit who spilled the beans, I want the decision-makers at the top to be thrown in jail for this.

      Of course...I am not super-rich, so I won't get my way.

    2. Re:Easy. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have.

      Note in citizen 4, the first phase of the nsa's activity against Snowden was in sussing out his aberrent behavior, and surveiling his girlfriend, family, and Hawaii place of residence. This is what happens in phase 1) of my short list. A list of persons of interest is produced using psych details, and active monitoring starts. Connections maps are created. Points of surveillance are established, and monitoring priority increases. Phase one ideally (for the nsa) ends with apprehension of their leak, but the process does not end there.

      After sussing out the entry point of the leaker, the companion network is either dismantled, or subtly repurposed for cointel.
      False intel is fed to the group. If the false intel causes the foriegn agency to suspect compromise, it sends the message to that foriegn agency that their action was detected, and that thier methods are not valid any longer. If the foriegn agency fails to change the operational behavior of the cell, then it may become beneficial to plant a double agent. This double agent can then cause the foriegn power to change its policies or public activities, through contaminated or misleading intelligence, created specifically for this purpose.

      That they can conduct such a profoundly invasive phase one investigation using literally any internet connected, or broadcast capable device, along with your financial data, and the information about you provided by your so called friends on social media, is the primary thrust behind snowden's leaks. What the NSA will do, and why they will do it is not going to change. The leaks from snowden concerned the how and the what.

    3. Re:Easy. by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From ths perspective of people who like to watch, as the nsa does, telling the landlord about where all the best places to peep so they can be fixed, is counter intuitive.

      That the same building techniques are used in thier own house, and that other people who like to watch can peep on them through them, is not seriously considered.

      Instead, only the loss of really good ways to peep is what is considered. If the method of peeping is likely to be discovered, or the architecture behind the means of peeping changes such that the approach becomes less valuable, the peeping Tom may delude himself into thinking that he is doing a service to society and the landlord by pointing out how that peeping may happen. (See for instance, methods used to remotely observe what is displayed on a crt monitor by monitoring the em spectrum for telltale radio artifacts-- who uses crts these days?)

      The nsa is sick, and likes to watch. The very idea that they would feel they should stopper up the holes they look through, or alert people that they are looking at them through them, is counter to their fetish. The very idea is absurd to them. Only somebody that sees by accident, and is disgusted by having seen, has motive to see to it that no such seeing ever happens again, apart of course, from somebody catching somebody peeping on them, and discovering the hole that way.

      From the perspective of the nsa, if they have eno ugh places to peep through, you can putty up holes all day, and they can wack off to watching you do it. Telling you where all the holes are stops that from happening. They want to watch you. Not keep you safe from being peeped on.

    4. Re:Easy. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      am I correct in understanding that the NSA knew about security holes in important aspects of our cyber infrastructure, and rather than report them so they could be fixed, they sat on them so they could use them "to protect us"?

      Yes. This is a big problem with the NSA and GCHQ, which have the dual missions of securing infrastructure and compromising enemy infrastructure. These missions come into direct conflict when the core of your and your enemy's infrastructure rely on the same components. Germany separates the two missions into separate institutions.

      The same thing came up when Heartbleed was discovered. There were basically two options:

      • The NSA had not found the vulnerability, in which case they were seriously failing in both missions as they'd either failed to notice that OpenSSL is core infrastructure (for the USA and for other countries) or they had failed to fuzz the protocol properly (part of the embarrassment about Heartbleed was that proper testing would have found it years ago). If this is the case, they are incompetent because there was evidence that the vulnerability had been exploited in the wild before the official disclosure.
      • The NSA had found the vulnerability but had decided that being able to attack SSL connections was worth the cost of leaving all financial and a lot of secure government communications vulnerable to foreign intelligence and criminal organisations. If this is the case, then they are incompetent at risk analysis and should not be permitted to engage in risky behaviour.

      There is no interpretation of events that makes them appear competent.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Easy. by ausekilis · · Score: 2
      Playing devil's advocate (and kinda sounding like a gov shill... sigh...):

      Sorry for my sloth but....am I correct in understanding that the NSA knew about security holes in important aspects of our cyber infrastructure, and rather than report them so they could be fixed, they sat on them so they could use them "to protect us"?

      Considering how much of the global gov/economy mimics the US in terms of software/hardware used, it's not just the U.S. that is vulnerable to these exploits. Just sayin'.

      They knowing left these holes open, with no idea (nor any way of knowing) whether or not any criminals were exploiting these holes already, to our detriment?

      What? And help our adversaries protect their low-hanging fruit?

      I'd say they aren't just failing to do their job, they are knowingly doing the opposite of their job. Their conscious inaction put at-risk those they are supposed to protect, is therefore unethical, and constitutes an enormous breach of trust given their position of authority.

      Here you have a good point. There's this concept of organizational charters for the government. It's the CIA's job to look outside our borders, the FBI's to enforce federal laws within our borders, and the NSA? to grope us at airport terminals? Why are they around again?

      They should all burn. I don't give a shit who spilled the beans, I want the decision-makers at the top to be thrown in jail for this.

      Of course...I am not super-rich, so I won't get my way.

      You should know that's not the way the gov works. You get a demotion and shoved in some clerical job until you retire. It worked for Patreus, and he should have spent a good 25+ years in club fed. Of course, the gov often does the wrong thing for the right reasons and the only way we can instill any change is by voting for the lesser evil and actively participating in government. They won't listen to 100 or even 1000 people, but once you start getting into millions then maybe.

  2. Good luck with investigation! by sshir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was 3 years ago. Importance of this detail is this: in pre-Snowden era NSA did not have access logs or other internal audit tools. Those were considered risk to security of operations.
    My speculation is that this is why the data dump is so old - to maximally complicate forensic team's job.

  3. Unsurprising by z0idberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not one of the steps involves questioning whether the NSA should be sitting on these 0-day exploits for their own use for years and leaving their own citizens and companies vulnerable to attack, rather than notifying the owners of the code and getting them patched.

    First order of business is finding out who let the cat out of the bag and getting retribution.

    1. Re:Unsurprising by sjames · · Score: 2

      It seems to me the first responsibility is to inform each vendor who has a vulnerability that is exploited so the stolen cache of cyberweapons becomes useless.

    2. Re:Unsurprising by z0idberg · · Score: 2
    3. Re:Unsurprising by sjames · · Score: 2

      True, but that's no thanks to the NSA. The exploit they fixed was leaked as part of the proof they actually have something worth paying for.

    4. Re:Unsurprising by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The first step is patience, let the tools spread and behind a wave of script kiddie attacks, the NSA launches a global back door offensive, trying to stick in as many back doors as possible behind a wave of script kiddie attacks, some of which will be prosecuted as cover. A stolen idea back from when crackers (before main stream media renamed them hackers), distributed their software to provide cover for their activities and have the heat taken off when those script kiddies get busted. Kind of odd making the leak public but their are lots of good people at the NSA who would not approve of this kind of criminal activity, by corrupt political appointees, so publicise the release of those NSA tools, rather than have honest NSA agents report that NSA tools were used in a criminal fashion.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. If only they could actually learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the NSA, CIA and FBI would actually use their powers for good and share the information they find to make our systems more fortified we'd be much better off than letting these exploits continue. They sure as fuck are not plugging the holes in their systems or other government systems, they just exploit them. They let our financial industry run around with the same exploits they know about and they are dumb as fuck to think that someone else China, Russia, you name it, are not also discovering these exploits. As we can see they were used on the NSA. What a bunch of retarded idiots.

    It's much easier and cheaper to defend and create strong defenses than it is to attack and exploit weakness. Why don't they work with everyone and plug the holes, create truly unbreakable encryption and let's move forward. You do not need weak encryption to catch the bad guys. The bad guys ALWAYS ultimately will have a weak link who will bring down an organization. If you're always working on a strong defense nobody is going to penetrate, but if you're always trying to attack, someone will penetrate your weak defenses because you're focusing on attacking.

    To bad power hungry assholes can't see that working together benefits all everyone, where as the constant fighting ultimately doesn't benefit anyone except for a very tiny few.

  5. Snowden? by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 2, Informative

    Part of me wonders if this leak is somehow related to Snowden's mysterious messages a couple weeks ago.
    I can't find mention of Shadow Brokers on Google before this hack. (Granted, they may have wanted to remain hidden.) Did the Shadow Brokers exist before this hack? Did they adopt a new name because of the scale?

  6. The "rogue NSA agent" by zedaroca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just gave security to a lot of previously unprotected American citizens and foreigners.
    It seems like the only agents worth their food are the rogue ones.

  7. Re:Yea by saloomy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They will conduct a witch hunt in public, of course. Their response will be in public, of course. The blame will be covered well by the media, the retaliation made public. Not to set an example. No. The real reason all of this will be done in public is because it keeps the media (and everyone the media then manipulate into accepting that the important things are whatever the media spins in our "culture of outrage") focused on the wrong thing.

    Keeping the conversation on the leaker, and not what is being leaked, is the only way for them to perpetuate their continued violation of law, their intelligence systems functional, funded, and their ability to persecute whomever they want, for whatever they want, liberty be damned.

    What we should be talking about is: How can they sit by in good conscience, and exploit the mistakes of the very industry that boosts the economy of the 21st century? How can they leave us exposed? How do they expect other governments (of countries more populated than we are) to not have the same skill set to discover these flaws? Where is our protection?

    The intelligence community has clearly lost track of its real mandate. It needs to be disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up. J Edgar's legacy is alive and well, and it is a pox on our house. Focus on that, and thank the leakers, whomever they are for pressing this issue with the American people.