Slashdot Mirror


Federal Criminal Probe Being Opened Into WikiLeaks' Publication of CIA Documents (cnn.com)

A federal criminal investigation is being opened into WikiLeaks' publication of documents detailing alleged CIA hacking operations, CNN reports citing several U.S. officials. From the report: The officials said the FBI and CIA are coordinating reviews of the matter. The investigation is looking into how the documents came into WikiLeaks' possession and whether they might have been leaked by an employee or contractor. The CIA is also trying to determine if there are other unpublished documents WikiLeaks may have. The documents published so far are largely genuine, officials said, though they are not yet certain if all of them are and whether some of the documents may have been altered. One of the biggest concerns for the federal government is if WikiLeaks publishes critical computer code on how operations are conducted, other hackers could take that code and cause havoc overseas. Security expert Robert Graham, wrote on Tuesday: The CIA didn't remotely hack a TV. The docs are clear that they can update the software running on the TV using a USB drive. There's no evidence of them doing so remotely over the Internet. The CIA didn't defeat Signal/WhatsApp encryption. The CIA has some exploits for Android/iPhone. If they can get on your phone, then, of course they can record audio and screenshots. Technically, this bypasses/defeats encryption -- but such phrases used by Wikileaks are highly misleading, since nothing related to Signal/WhatsApp is happening. [...] This hurts the CIA a lot. Already, one AV researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA, as it matches the description perfectly to something in the leak. We can develop anti-virus and intrusion-detection signatures based on this information that will defeat much of what we read in these documents. This would put a multi-year delay in the CIA's development efforts. Plus, it'll now go on a witch-hunt looking for the leaker, which will erode morale.

21 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where is the Federal Criminal Probe into illegal spying by our own government?

    1. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It gets muddier when it comes to US operations that are not on US soil, and that's also supposed to help firm-up the distinction between the FBI as a mostly-conventional federal law enforcement agency that operates domestically and the CIA as an espionage agency that is supposed to operate outside of the borders of the United States.

      Obviously these distinctions are not as cut and dried as they're supposed to be, and it gets worse when the NSA and other agencies get involved. The compartmentalization that's supposed to prevent federal agencies from treading upon the rights those within the borders of the United States has been eroded in the name of the Wahr on Terrah to where if they want to circumvent, they can circumvent.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps there were real security concerns vis a vis

      Irrelevant and completely subjective. Where was this "concern" when Hillary ran her unpatched and protected private email server that was "less secure than Gmail"?

      I'm sorry, but I have a VERY hard time believing anything coming from the Dark Shadow Government. Remember, it was Clapper who said they didn't collect any data on any US citizen, only to have it come out that they collect a shit ton of data on everyone, not just those they are "watching".

      These people will lie with a straight face, and believe that they are entitled to lie about lying. AND if you trust your government still, you're just not paying attention or are so partisan that Trump could cure cancer and you'd have a conniption fit about it being from a Nazi or some shit.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where was this "concern" when Hillary ran her unpatched and protected private email server that was "less secure than Gmail"?

      Interminable congressional investigations and literal yards of MSM reporting on even the fluffiest of details? What, were you asleep or something?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For a very long time, one needed to be of above-average intelligence (including cognitive power and awareness of relevant information) in order to figure out that the government was a huge pack of liars.

      Modern technological advances, however, are giving us the ability to expose government corruption very publicly, so that much more ordinary people can see the plain truth. Their biases will only withstand the onslaught of evidence for so long.

      When "the masses" start accepting the reality of government corruption, and collectively realize that "necessary evil" is the only sane attitude to take when dealing with the government, we might see some real political pressure brought to bear on issues of transparency and public accountability.

      But...those wheels turn slowly.....

    5. Re:Where is the Federal Criminal Probe on the CIA? by bongey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the Democrats still nominated her for the President.

      Clapper said Obama didn't order a wiretap on Trump , said nothing about whether wiretap actually happened.

  2. Kill The Messenger by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, Just like Snowden, let's ignore the purportedly criminal and corrupt activity of the US Government and it's elected thugs - and just kill the messenger. Sweep the body under the run and strong arm anyone with evidence to go away.
    Case Closed, mission accomplished, normality achieved.

    1. Re:Kill The Messenger by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Assassination by car hack (Michael Hastings)

      That's just the ability to do so. The military also has the ability to kill every human on the planet. It's only a problem if they're actually doing it.

      The intentionally putting everyone at risk by actively avoiding closing known security flaws - and allowing them to be exploited by foreign powers - goes directly against their stated reason to exist, but is more morally and professionally reprehensible than illegal.

      I agree, that is a serious problem, though not currently illegal to my knowledge. We have thousands of years of military history from which to create our philosophies of war, rules of engagement, proportional response, and the relationship between citizen and soldier. Not so with the cyber. We need to the ability to hack the enemy, but is it possible to do so while not leaving our own people defenseless?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Kill The Messenger by nycsubway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wikileaks is a highly political organization. They're not an equal opportunity leaker. The timing and subjects of their leaks is definitely geared toward specific political goals.

    3. Re:Kill The Messenger by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats what the Democrats told you.

      But in reality, the Democrats just have a lot lot lot lot lot more to hide.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Kill The Messenger by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not sure that WikiLeaks is partisan issue at all. The Republicans hated it when it was leaking stuff they wanted hid (and the Democrats loved it), now the shoe is on the other foot, and the roles are reversed. I have said in the past, when people ask me how I view Snowden, I say he is a Traitorous Hero. They have no concept that he can legitimately be both Hero and Traitor. Such is the world painted with only black and whites.

      Which is why I find the whole (R) good/bad (D) bad/good arguments amusing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Kill The Messenger by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's weird how Wikileaks was "just trying to get the information out there" and "serving the people" when they leaked information critical of a Republican, but now they're leaking information critical of Democrats, they're a "highly political organization" that's carefully timing their leaks. Or did you forget how Wikileaks came into being? When they leaked information about the Bush administration? I swear, it's like people on the Internet have the memory of a goldfish.

      Since people are going to inevitably make the accusations: I'm not a Republican, not a Trump supporter, and also not a Democrat, and not a Clinton supporter. Also not an Assange supporter (he's a jackass who's just claiming the US is going to extradite him to avoid facing the charges and to keep himself in the limelight), though WikiLeaks itself frequently serves a useful and necessary purpose. I just think people are so blinded by partisanship they can't see that both sides of the political aisle in the US are corrupt, self-serving corporate sellouts who need to be replaced.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:Kill The Messenger by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wikileaks is a highly political organization. They're not an equal opportunity leaker. The timing and subjects of their leaks is definitely geared toward specific political goals.

      Why does that mean we should ignore what they leak?

    7. Re:Kill The Messenger by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Right. The difference is, we don't tell soldiers "here's where you might get shot; we could give you body armor, but then everyone would have it, so... good luck." Which is exactly what the CIA is doing.

      here's where you might get hacked; we could give you patches for these vulnerabilities, but then everyone would have them, so... good luck.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. Worried about exploits getting leaked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they should have thought of that before hoarding vulnerabilities instead of disclosing them. Security by obscurity is equivalent to no security at all. The responsible thing for the CIA to do now is a disclosure of all known vulnerabilities to the parties of those products so they have some chance to patch them before exploits are in the wild. What they will do instead is waste taxpayer money on this investigation and continue to go after WikiLeaks while continuing to hoard vulnerabilities and continue illegal domestic spying.

  4. I like WikiLeaks more every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gotta keep cleaning house until all Democrat moles are gone.

  5. Can't trust the CIA by jediborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10 Times today it was repeated on CNN that the CIA "Only spies on foreign citizens, not on US citizens"

    I don't believe that for one second. Knowing how little oversight the CIA gets from congress they could dragnet all of American communications and lie to congress and say they weren't doing it. Actually, wait isn't that exactly what the NSA did? Didn't Former NSA director James Clapper lie under oath to congress when he professed the NSA wasn't spying on americans, just a few months before snowden proved that they where? Why should we expect the CIA to do any different, just because their mission statement say's they don't have jurisdiction to spy within american borders?

    Nobody's watching this watcher, which is why we shouldn't trust them one iota.

  6. Tricky problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you hire a bunch of honest people who are loyal to their country, and then ask them to do illegal and immoral things, eventually they rat you out (that being the decent thing to do, and all).

    If you hire a bunch of crooks who have no qualms about betraying others for your profit, eventually they will betray you for their profit.

    If you hire people stupid enough to believe that patriotism is the same thing as unquestioning obedience to government officials, they won't be competent enough to do their jobs.

    I realize that government officials absolutely abhor transparency and public accountability...but....the new technological landscape is eliminating some options for secrecy that once allowed corruption to thrive.

  7. Atttribution by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    here's a nice tidbit that, to me, nicely illustrates the problem with attribution: "one AV researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA" Bear this in mind the next time someone says "that guy did it"

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  8. This is why Backdoor encryption is bad by ripvlan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It occurs to me that this Leak could be used as the argument for why placing a backdoor into encryption is a bad idea. At some point in time - somebody will figure it out and leak it to the world.

    The idea that the government is going to be trusted with these BIG secrets and they won't get out is preposterous. See see -- don't look over there!! Ignore the man behind the curtain.

  9. Re:Try this at home: by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You will be surprised, especially if you think Wikileaks is a force for transparency.

    Well, they do have that 100% record for the accuracy of what they've leaked.

    If you're really lazy, go read some posts by infosec experts and pro-privacy bloggers. They're already doing some of this work for you, and you will still be surprised at what they say. I don't want to spoil it by telling you.

    Hmm, sounds more like "go do some work to prove my vague assertions so I don't have to get my lazy butt off the couch". Must not be familiar with Hitchen's razor.