Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#21

Post by bpodgursky »

StreamBright wrote: post #16
authoritarian wrote: post #15

I would hope that a country with the largest military industrial complex in the world can hack a group of camel herders in a desert. Doesn't seem particularly impressive

Also since they supplied equipment to them it would not have been as difficult to trojan it.

The US support of Syrian "moderate" rebels was stupid, shortsighted, and pretended that the world was a different place.

And I will infinitely fault the Obama administration for providing technology which immediately fell into jihadist hands, which any reasonable analyst would have told them would happen.

But it's not accurate to say the US 'supplied' equipment to ISIS. ISIS stole it.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#22

Post by xwdv »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #2

I wish articles like this would divulge some details of the technical side of hacking, rather than keep it a mystical field of study. What did they hack and how did they “get in”? Contrary to the title, there is little “how” and mostly “what”.

It’s not a “mystical field of study”, it’s called cybersecurity and you learn it the way you learn anything else, take books or take a course. Learn about networking, learn about malware, learn about social engineering, do you even know what a reverse shell is? Just learn.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#23

Post by GhettoMaestro »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #2

I wish articles like this would divulge some details of the technical side of hacking, rather than keep it a mystical field of study. What did they hack and how did they “get in”? Contrary to the title, there is little “how” and mostly “what”.

While I share your same streak of curiosity, unfortunately this is an area of life that opening up details of your own operations is probably most likely always a net negative.

Get a TS/SCI and go work for CyberCommand if you want to be in the know.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#24

Post by will4274 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #21
StreamBright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also since they supplied equipment to them it would not have been as difficult to trojan it.

The US support of Syrian "moderate" rebels was stupid, shortsighted, and pretended that the world was a different place. And I will infinitely fault the Obama administration for providing technology which immediately fell into jihadist hands, which any reasonable analyst would have told them would happen. But it's not accurate to say the US 'supplied' equipment to ISIS. ISIS stole it.

If it was what "any reasonable analyst would have told them would happen," why isn't it reasonable to assume that was the intention? Governments aren't single level actors - they are occasionally capable of subtlety - saying one thing even when intending another.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#25

Post by gnode »

codesections wrote: post #10

Like others, I'm also left wondering what methods the US is really using. Obviously, it's too soon to disclose all the details. But compare this (where the few strategies disclosed involve methods like "guess the answer to a security question") to something where we do know the details. For example, the Stuxnet worm used multiple OS zero days and involved hacking or otherwise exfiltrating signing keys from multiple o…

Maybe this campaign was as primitive as they let on. It's likely that bringing down a terrorist group's marketing campaign didn't need or warrant a sophisticated attack, like sabotaging Iran's nuclear programme with Stuxnet did. A concerted attack effort using public knowledge techniques may have been enough.

It's in the interest of cyber-warfare actors to not expose their capabilities unnecessarily. Although efforts are taken to prevent malware from coming to the attention of enemies / rivals, or even being adopted by them or criminals, deployment always comes with that risk.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#26

Post by swiley »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #2

I wish articles like this would divulge some details of the technical side of hacking, rather than keep it a mystical field of study. What did they hack and how did they “get in”? Contrary to the title, there is little “how” and mostly “what”.

I was under the impression that a large portion of it was just google mobilizing their mass manipulation machine for what they decided was the greater good.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#27

Post by cc81 »

will4274 wrote: post #24
bpodgursky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US support of Syrian "moderate" rebels was stupid, shortsighted, and pretended that the world was a different place. And I will infinitely fault the Obama administration for providing technology which immediately fell into jihadist hands, which any reasonable analyst would have told them would happen. But it's not accurate to say the US 'supplied' equipment to ISIS. ISIS stole it.

If it was what "any reasonable analyst would have told them would happen," why isn't it reasonable to assume that was the intention? Governments aren't single level actors - they are occasionally capable of subtlety - saying one thing even when intending another.

Did they even get any significant amount of advanced gear that way?

Most heavy things they got from looting Iraqi military.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#28

Post by bpodgursky »

will4274 wrote: post #24
bpodgursky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US support of Syrian "moderate" rebels was stupid, shortsighted, and pretended that the world was a different place. And I will infinitely fault the Obama administration for providing technology which immediately fell into jihadist hands, which any reasonable analyst would have told them would happen. But it's not accurate to say the US 'supplied' equipment to ISIS. ISIS stole it.

If it was what "any reasonable analyst would have told them would happen," why isn't it reasonable to assume that was the intention? Governments aren't single level actors - they are occasionally capable of subtlety - saying one thing even when intending another.

I am not going to debate why "Obama secretly supported ISIS" is stupid.

It's stupid, and if you think it's plausible, you need to honestly evaluate whether your news sources are informing you or peddling a narrative with an objective.

Re: How the U.S. Hacked ISIS

#30

Post by rootsudo »

authoritarian wrote: post #15

I would hope that a country with the largest military industrial complex in the world can hack a group of camel herders in a desert. Doesn't seem particularly impressive

Basically shared my same sentiments. One group isn't even trying the other is fully reactive and trying to uncover how much the other groups know.

USA always will win.

Post reply on HN