11–20 of 193 posts
> "The fundamental purpose of intelligence is to be able to effectively penetrate our adversaries in order to gather vital intelligence. By its very nature, that only works if secrecy is maintained and our codes are protected." lol "codes"
> "The fundamental purpose of intelligence is to be able to effectively penetrate our adversaries in order to gather vital intelligence. By its very nature, that only works if secrecy is maintained and our codes are protected." lol "codes"
Does this seem like sensationalist junk journalism to anyone else? We already know the NYT has an axe to grind regarding this administration, and they take some jabs here too. Even if you hate Trump, you should have the clarity to see that this article feeds into the Russia investigation by hyping up the harms of Russian meddling to stir up anti-Trump fervor over collusion, even though the events took place before he…
When you say this administration, do you mean Putin or trump?
Whether you like the guy or you believe he is a scoundrel who should be impeached, it's a little strange to put anything on him for this, considering the dates involved and how far removed the situation is from him.
> Mr. Obama did not act on the advice, in part because Admiral Rogers’ agency was at the center of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump, who again on Saturday disputed his intelligence agencies’ findings on Russia and the election, extended the admiral’s time in office. Some former intelligence officials say they are flabbergasted that he has been able to hold on to his job.
In other words "Obama couldn't take care of business because of the Russia investigation, and Trump kept the guy around, to the chagrin of other intelligence people."
Either one of these agencies suffering such a major security breach would be extraordinary but both at the same time is unprecedented.
> The agency regarded as the world’s leader in breaking into adversaries’ computer networks failed to protect its own. Those are two very different things. Focusing on one of them doesn't automatically benefit your efforts on the other.
Uh, yeah. It isn't saying, "why did defense fail to automatically follow from offense?" It's literally just saying they failed to protect their own network, whether technically or organizationally.
Maybe my wording is not perfect "they are capable of leaking" well you could argue that NSA didn't leak, it was possibly hacked by an outside actor. I don't think the distinction matters much though in this case. The main point is that they can no longer say "trust us" with a straight face.
> The agency regarded as the world’s leader in breaking into adversaries’ computer networks failed to protect its own. Those are two very different things. Focusing on one of them doesn't automatically benefit your efforts on the other.
If you have the best then you should test your systems against being exploited by the best. And then harden from there. If you have the knowledge - knowing you're a prome target- why not double its value?
As it is, their approach strikes me as one of arrogance, or (ironically) lack of intelligence about foreign threats, or worse...both.
Both is not what we're paying them for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say this administration, do you mean Putin or trump?
Probably Trump. However, many of the issues the NSA faces occurred before Trump's administration.
He, similar to Obama, is the wrong "leader" at the wrong time. We're off course and getting more and more so with each day.
This is something I have been wondering about: how did both the CIA and NSA have their toolkits leaked within months of each other? Either one of these agencies suffering such a major security breach would be extraordinary but both at the same time is unprecedented.
Plus you probably don't want your computers that you're using for offensive operations to look any different than a normal computer on the internet.. so my guess is that is that there was an exploit of an offensive computer somehow through that back to a secured network where those tools were developed and deployed... probably through the method of remote command and control.
I'm surprised they haven't found the method of infiltration yet. But my guess is they should seriously look into unknown vulnerabilities. But it's also true (if Wikipedia is to believe believed) that agencies work together in joint operations. In that case it would only take one rouge agent to get physical access to leaking materials that would effect both agencies if they were part of the joint operations.