Slashdot Mirror
Any Half-Decent Hacker Could Break Into Mar-a-Lago (alternet.org)
MrCreosote writes: Properties owned and run by the Trump Organization, including places where Trump spends much of his time and has hosted foreign leaders, are a network security nightmare. From a report via ProPublica (co-published with Gizmodo): "We parked a 17-foot motor boat in a lagoon about 800 feet from the back lawn of The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and pointed a 2-foot wireless antenna that resembled a potato gun toward the club. Within a minute, we spotted three weakly encrypted Wi-Fi networks. We could have hacked them in less than five minutes, but we refrained. A few days later, we drove through the grounds of the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with the same antenna and aimed it at the clubhouse. We identified two open Wi-Fi networks that anyone could join without a password. We resisted the temptation. We have also visited two of President Donald Trump's other family-run retreats, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and a golf club in Sterling, Virginia. Our inspections found weak and open Wi-Fi networks, wireless printers without passwords, servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information. The risks posed by the lax security, experts say, go well beyond simple digital snooping. Sophisticated attackers could take advantage of vulnerabilities in the Wi-Fi networks to take over devices like computers or smart phones and use them to record conversations involving anyone on the premises."
Trump just wants to make sure that everyone can see we have the best cyber.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Because Trump himself configured all of these insecure WiFi points, and not some clubhouse staffer making $12/hr?
But heaven forbid, should he be mislead into using a personal email server no one tells him isn't locked down properly.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Now. Show me that you were able to do more than break into the equivalent of Starbucks public network.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
That Trump would spend top dollar on network security. But this is the same guy who tweets and calls old buddies on an insecure cellphone. Your tax dollars at work.
Open wifi isn't necessarily a security risk. Every Starbucks has one.
Good thing that you pointed this out..
In other words, you know that violating the CFAA has draconian penalties and you want some stupid script kiddie to take the risk for you....
Most hotels in the US now seem to provide wifi. In my experience it is secured by either an easily available password or a login page. Many guests expect easy to use wifi.
In such circumstances is it possible to have secure wifi?
HACK THE PLANET!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I wonder how many public networks Camp David has.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
They did not connect to the unprotected networks (i.e. networks that are open, by design). They also did not connect to the weakly protected networks (which would have been illegal, but their point was that hackers and foreign governments could easily access them).
#DeleteFacebook
I have a feeling you will be intercepted and detained if you try this during a Trump visit.
The exclusion zone for boats, cars and aircraft is pretty invasive and I believe their choice of locations would be off limits.
Then there is the whole, what did you actually hack into? A lightly defended public WiFi network where the WEP key is on a sign in the lobby? Heck, even the Point of Sale and reservations systems? How's that an issue for national security? It's not like we don't already know when Trump is there and when he's not... What else you got? The ability to charge Trump's room for some pay-per-view movie? Yea that might embarrass him I guess...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Dumb news organization admits it broke the law!
Did they? I don't know the specifics of the law in regards to WiFi, but this seems(according to the first half of TFS) no different than someone turning on their laptop in the parking lot of a hotel and noticing that the hotel is one network that they could potentially log onto w/o encryption.
That being said, if that's all they did, then it also doesn't prove one way or the other how secure it is. Most resorts and such have public WiFi. Many don't require any log on at all. As long as all they can do is access the internet and no internal systems, it's working as intended. I've stayed in places that also have unsecured printers outside of the regular network for guests to use.
Our inspections found weak and open Wi-Fi networks, wireless printers without passwords, servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information.
Open WiFi and printers are to be expected for guests to use, as long as they are on a separate network from anything that's not intended to be public. The rest of this statement contradicts the previous statement of:
We resisted the temptation.
Either they did log onto the network and were doing some snooping (in which case they may have broken the law), or they didn't and made this up.
and read the sign that says "This month's WiFi Password is GOLF". It's a country club. They assume you belong there, unless you don't look like you belong there. What is the point of securing a network that has a publicly available password?
This would be different from a majority of the companies and some government networks... how? Security has always been an after thought for most companies as it is deemed too expensive. Maybe the hacking will escalate the costs to a point that they will start paying attention to it a little more.
We resisted the temptation.
Either they did log onto the network and were doing some snooping (in which case they may have broken the law), or they didn't and made this up.
Or, another thing they could have done, is idly listen to the network, and notice that there was printer communication on the network.
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
Well known Russian spies like Kizlyak might break into his network, and get top secrets, maybe even 'code word' level secrets. Oh wait, all they have to do is visit Trump and ask him and he'll tell them.
There's still the matter of the two spies, one FSB and one ex-FSB which fit the profile of two US contacts source to verify the pee memos. They were arrested for treason just after Trump got the unredacted version of the memos listing the sources that confirmed parts of the memo as true.
So who gave Putin the names of these (likely) US agents? Was that another one of Trumps telephone calls?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-treason-fsb-spies-kaspersky-labs-us-intelligence-denies-cia-hacking/
"MOSCOW -- Russian news agencies are reporting that former members of the domestic security agency and a cybersecurity expert have been formally charged with treason."
"Reports emerged last week that three officials of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and an executive for cybersecurity company Kaspersky Labs had been arrested for treason. Government officials haven’t commented on the case .... citing a named Russian official said to be close to the Kremlin, Mikhailov was the leader of a covert hacking group known by the name “Humpty Dumpty” that “cooperated with the Ukrainian SBU (security service), which is the same as working for the CIA; he worked with them, which is obviously treason.”
So likely CIA agent names were given to Putin shortly after Trump got access to that data.
McMasters tried to misdirect the leak that you witnessed Trump give to the Russians. But was there all the time? i.e. could Trump have given them more details of other secrets? Trump seems to feel comfortable giving top secrets to Russian spies likes its an everyday thing, so I wonder how much he said that McMasters didn't witness in that session alone.
1. Was this done with written permission from the network owner? If not, you opened yourself up to legal action by the network owner if they choose to pursue it.
Listening to SSID broadcast is hardly illegal.
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
seems gawker is still alive sadly
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They went all James Bond on folks and pointed their " hacker-antenna " at the building and found weak or unprotected access points.
And ?
Guest access is typically open access which would explain the latter pretty quickly.
Weak access could be any number of networks, but not necessarily one that would be useful to anyone.
I swear, the media is going full Autistic when it comes to trying to destroy EVERYTHING that is Donald Trump. If the information is negative, or can be spun into a negative light, they are making sure the entire world hears about it. 24/7 Regardless if there is any truth to it or not.
Lots and lots of rumors, " secret sources ", and whatnot, but not a shred of concrete evidence.
WTF has happened to journalistic integrity ?
https://platzdermars.blogspot....
I did a quick wireless network scan when I was down there in February and I could get in to the network in less than a few hours from off-site. You had better believe the FBI has that place under surveillance.
Mar-a-lago is a commercial resort and not a secure government facility. Should they have better security? Yes. Is this any reflection the Trump administrations ability to run the country. No. As long as the administration and any visiting dignitaries do not have any assets on those networks who cares.
Before you get your panties in a twist, I don't think the man should even be running a frozen banana stand but bandwagon articles like this distracts from other things that are actual grounds for concern and impeachment. Like firing the director of the FBI because he wouldn't stop an investigation you didn't like (which Trump himself admit was the reason in the interview Lester Holt). Or the fact that the administration's defense of his given classified information to the Russians was that he never reads security briefs in enough detail to know the sources or identifying information that would compromise the sources (seriously).
"Any Half-Decent Hacker Could Break Into Pretty Much Any Hotel, Coffee Shop or Car Dealership In The Country Because Their Networks Are Set Up By Someone Who Has No Clue About Security."
FTFY
I hope nobody here thinks that this is a Trump-exclusive. He's in really good company, the more exclusive and elitist a club or establishment, the more likely their non-physical security sucks big time. Why? Same reason as everywhere, nobody who could sensibly demand it knows jack shit about it, so why bother throwing money at it? Worse, securing something invariably cuts into its usability. I'm actually surprised those access points had any kind of security. None of the oh-so-important people complained yet that they're too stupid to configure their toy to connect? Oh, sorry, let me rephrase it: None of them complained yet that you idiots cannot configure your computer thingie right so their expensive and highly intelligent device can connect to it? Because MY thing was expensive and it's very high tech, so if it doesn't work, it OBVIOUSLY has to be that you're too stupid to configure YOUR end!
This is basically why security sucks in such places. Not the physical, mind you. But IT security usually is a mess. And as long as there are computer illiterates who dictate what has to be and what must not be, this also will not change.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This comment will be a long way down the page. At time of writing, there are several comments above all modded to 4/5 saying "hotels have open wifi". Well done.
Did no one read "wireless printers without passwords, servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information" ? Clearly the mods didn't read it any more than the commenters.
Whilst I agree it's a bit of a thin piece, the places where the president goes for 'private stuff' matter. If he's doing a press day talking to kids in school or whatever, then there's no benefit hacking a printer to listen in to what he says. However, when he's hosting someone and playing a friendly round of golf and hanging out in the clubhouse as if the two of them are just two guys and not heads of state - then all of a sudden stuff like open wifi and hackable printers and servers starts to matter a lot more. I have no idea if all that stuff gets switched off when the place gets 'secured' though - knowing that would have made this article a lot more useful.
Most resorts and such have public WiFi.
Most resorts are not used by the President of the United States to conduct his business.
Just like an unlocked door does not constitute poor security, unless it takes you to a room full of swag or information you should not see. Merely finding some APs (that could simply have been APs on someone's phone) does not make a story.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Why is the President of the United States conducting business at a public resort?
For the same reason he has international meetings and talks about air strikes in between the main course and dessert in the completely open and unvetted surroundings of the maralago public dining room.
Because he's a venal moron who wants government money to come directly to him.
Because he's an arrogant prick who thinks that he can do whatever he wants without consequences.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
(different AC)
If memory serves correctly, the old WEP-encrypted networks can be 'hacked' by just collecting a sufficiently large number of packets then running a statistical attack against them (because there's a chance it'll occasionally reveal a single bit of the password and you can chain these together mathematically).
After that you can monitor any one else's packets since the encryption key stays the same all the while they're connected.
So the bigger issue is you don't need to connect to the network to exploit it. Everything's done passively and even if it's still technically illegal, who's going to know?
That's what half the country is asking.
Golden$hower$
"We parked a 17-foot motor boat in a lagoon about 800 feet from the back lawn of The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and pointed a 2-foot wireless antenna that resembled a potato gun toward the club."
All joking aside, this is an excellent way to get shot. Do not point anything that looks like a 2 foot cannon at the secret service.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Just because you find them doesn't mean they aren't bait. It might not be totally complete to say there is no security without going end-to-end and proving it. By going end-to-end and proving it, you would likely incur the wrath of the secret service, and possibly break federal law, so ... I don't recommend (in any way) doing that. Your jail time is on you.
open wifi with an captive portal?
You are just figuring that out? You are right, as YUUUGE as this problem is, it is small when compared to the remainder of the problems the orange haired clown brings to the dinner table.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Consider who often visits such resorts... and who owns the ones discussed in this article.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
... do it.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I believe they didn't connect to the networks they say they didn't connect to (note that they don't mention any contents of those networks); I also believe they purposely didn't mention the level of security on the networks they did connect to.
Those could have had no security, appearing as free public wi-fi, or they could have been properly secured. In the former case, no law was broken; in the latter, there is no way to prove they weren't secured after this article ran.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So they didn't access a network so they didn't know what it contains. What's the threat again?
I'm currently sitting in a hotel posting this. The WiFi has WEP encryption. WEP of all things. Hack away, you can't get me. I'm not even on the damn thing. The 4G I get is faster.
For all we know it's a frigging honeypot. Until anyone connects to it and downloads Trump's naked selfies this article is all alarmist title and nothing of substance.
It is entirely possible that open access points are:
a) the least of our problems
b) a massive problem
It's just the other problems are even yuger.
...are you suggesting that a commercial resort and property organization doesn't have NSA-grade elint protection? /shock.
Curious that many of the people railing about this likely would just as vociferously insist that the Secretary of State talking about classified info her own private shitty email server is "JUST FINE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS".
Trumps a narcissistic boob, but this is pretty much going to be the standard for any politician that's NOT from a cultivated political class - ie anyone who has any life other than politics.
-Styopa
I thought we wanted policy discussions to be done out in the open in public? Isn't that called transparency?
Or do you have information about classified information being disclosed in public?
I've done work for two "exclusive" old-money country clubs in my city and both of them are cheap as hell. The members have all the money in the world when it comes to the damn golf course, but IT is dead last on spending.
One of the clubs had to resort to screwing framed pictures to the wall in some areas of the club because members had been caught "borrowing" pictures to display at home. The expensive floral arrangements had to be hidden until after the regular ladies' bridge game because the "ladies" would either take the arrangements completely or create a "take home" arrangement with a big chunk of the flowers. Food, booze, cans of pop, etc. have to be kept under lock and key or under the watch of an employee, at both clubs members were caught literally loading their trunk with cases of stuff.
Members routinely call up and challenge their food and beverage bills, demanding that drink orders and entire meals be refunded because of errors in billing or complaints about the quality of the food. The AR employee tells me that one member in particular demands refunds every month, picking out the most expensive meals on her bill and claiming "these meals were unsatisfactory and I won't pay for them."
IT spending of course suffers. When we put together upgrade proposals (for amounts totaling maybe $20-30k), we occasionally have to meet with board members who present "Google shopping" lists of prices from unknown vendors (likely selling grey market or unlabeled refurbs) and explain why our prices "are so high."
It is no surprise to me that club IT sucks, because club management sucks and members don't want to pay for anything.
The special counsel will get anything by sending the FBI in, no need for hackers.
You're considering the wrong issue. It's not about what visitors might transmit over those networks (which don't appear to be for visitor use in the first place), but the records stored within. There is literally no way a VPN is relevant here.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
They did not connect...
Then how did they determine that the "back-end databases contain[ed] sensitive information?" Either they broke your CFAA, or this is speculation.
You just figured out how to access the guest network of a resort. You now have the computer skills of a 8 year old. Do you want a prize for your amazing find you fucking retarded click bate piece of shit?
So I don't remember anyone scanning President Obama Chicago home, Hawaii locations, celebrity homes he spent time in, golf courses, etc.
The point is that this is not a secure facility and yet Trump has had classified briefings there. A team of security professionals would have fixed up the problems quickly.
Because information that would not be sensitive if it relates to an average person or business is sensitive when it relates to the office of the President of the United States.
Things like location and movements of regular people are merely a privacy concern, not a security concern, but movements of people who work for or are meeting with the President of the United States are important secrets. Whatever backend services are connected to the hotspots, they contain sensitive information relating to national security! That's true even if it is just for off-hours internet access. Just having people connected in some way to the office of the President walking in range of a hotspot with electronics in their pocket could be a risk, even if they aren't "connecting" intentionally to any network.
Why is the President of the United States conducting business at a public resort?
For PR, because he owns it.
Also, most of the foreign workers that accompany delegations are used to corruption and they know to be seen spending lots of money at the President's business. Nobody has to ask for anything, or ask to get anything. It isn't a bribe, it is just curry.
Well then open access points are the least of our problems.
LOL probably true, probably true... but lets wait and see if they secure the network, or what gets cracked in the end, before we decide how bad it was.
There is basically unlimited potential for harm if they make other mistakes at the same time as these ones.
Neither did Aaron
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
Think some retards in an car driving around are smarter than teams of security professionals?
Let me put it this way: I always used to assume the answer was "no".
And lest you think this is an anti-Trump thing, remember that the reason why Clinton had the private email server in the first place was that the State Department's system didn't work and the Secretary herself couldn't persuade anyone to fix it.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
... but, this isn't a story.
If you have proof that machines hosting sensitive information are connected to these networks or that sensitive information is being transmitted insecurely over these networks, then that would be a story. But, you don't. And why don't you? Because it likely didn't happen.
Trump does plenty of real stupid shit. There is absolutely no need to manufacture fake stupid shit to accuse him of.