Tag Archive for: Think

You’d Think The FBI Would Be More Sensitive To Protecting Encrypted Communications Now That We Know The Russians Cracked The FBI’s Comms

/in

On Monday, Yahoo News had a bit of a new bombshell in revealing that the closures of various Russian compounds in the US, along with the expulsion of a bunch of Russian diplomats — which many assumed had to do with alleged election interference — may have actually been a lot more about the Russians breaching a key FBI encrypted communications system.

American officials discovered that the Russians had dramatically improved their ability to decrypt certain types of secure communications and had successfully tracked devices used by elite FBI surveillance teams. Officials also feared that the Russians may have devised other ways to monitor U.S. intelligence communications, including hacking into computers not connected to the internet. Senior FBI and CIA officials briefed congressional leaders on these issues as part of a wide-ranging examination on Capitol Hill of U.S. counterintelligence vulnerabilities.

These compromises, the full gravity of which became clear to U.S. officials in 2012, gave Russian spies in American cities including Washington, New York and San Francisco key insights into the location of undercover FBI surveillance teams, and likely the actual substance of FBI communications, according to former officials. They provided the Russians opportunities to potentially shake off FBI surveillance and communicate with sensitive human sources, check on remote recording devices and even gather intelligence on their FBI pursuers, the former officials said.

That all seems like a fairly big deal. And, it specifically targeted the FBI’s encrypted communications phone system:

That effort compromised the encrypted radio systems used by the FBI’s mobile surveillance teams, which track the movements of Russian spies on American soil, according to more than half a dozen former senior intelligence and national security officials. Around the same time, Russian spies also compromised the FBI teams’ backup communications systems — cellphones outfitted with “push-to-talk” walkie-talkie capabilities. “This was something we took extremely seriously,” said a former senior counterintelligence official.

The Russian operation went beyond tracking the communications devices used by FBI surveillance teams, according to four former senior officials. Working out of secret “listening posts” housed in Russian diplomatic and other government-controlled facilities, the Russians were able to intercept, record and eventually crack the codes to FBI radio communications.

While this is all interesting in the “understanding what the latest spy v. spy fight is about,” it’s even more incredible in the context of the FBI still fighting to this day to weaken encryption for everyone else. The FBI, under both James Comey and Christopher Wray, have spent years trashing the idea that encrypted communications was important and repeatedly asking the tech industry to insert deliberate vulnerabilities in order to allow US officials to have easier access to encrypted communications. The pushback on this, over and over, is that any such system for “lawful access” will inevitably lead to much greater risk of others being able to hack in as well.

Given that, you’d think that the FBI would be especially sensitive to this risk, now that we know the Russians appear to have cracked at least two of the FBI’s encrypted communications systems. Indeed, back in 2015, we highlighted how the FBI used to recommend that citizens use encryption to protect their mobile phones, but they had quietly removed that recommendation right around the time Comey started playing up the “going dark” nonsense.

Of course, it’s possible that the folks dealing with the Russians cracking FBI encrypted comms are separate from the people freaking out about consumer use of encryption, but the leadership (i.e., Comey and Wray) certainly had to understand both sides of this. This leaves me all a bit perplexed. Were Comey and Wray so completely clueless that they didn’t think these two situations had anything to do with one another? Or does it mean that they thought “hey, if we had our comms exposed, so should everyone else?” Or do they just not care?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

Analysis | The Cybersecurity 202: U.S. should counter Russia and China hacking with its own influence operations, think tank says – The Washington Post

/in

Analysis | The Cybersecurity 202: U.S. should counter Russia and China hacking with its own influence operations, think tank says  The Washington Post

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies says nothing else is working.

“chinese hackers” – read more

Lowy Institute think tank hit by Chinese hackers – NEWS.com.au

/in

Lowy Institute think tank hit by Chinese hackers  NEWS.com.au

Australia’s leading foreign affairs think tank has been the subject of at least two cyber attacks from China, in an apparent effort to view its dealings with the …

“chinese hackers” – read more

Some Apple Employees Think Company’s New TV Service Will Be Dull As Nails

/in

Like many companies, Apple has been trying to disrupt the traditional television sector for years. But like countless companies before it, Apple has repeatedly run face-first into a cable and broadcast industry that’s aggressively resistant to actual change. As a result, Apple’s efforts to launch a TV service have been comically delayed for years as cable and broadcast companies (worried that what Apple did to the music industry would also happen to the TV sector) tightly restricted how their content could be used if the approach varies too far from accepted industry norms.

So despite Steve Jobs insisting that Apple had “cracked the code” on a next-gen TV set as early as 2011 — and efforts to strike licensing deals that have been ongoing since at least 2012 — nothing much has really come from Apple’s promised revolution on the television front.

In the years since, numerous streaming providers (Dish’s Sling TV, AT&T’s DirecTV Now, Sony’s Playstation Vue) have jumped into the sector, and Apple is definitely a late arrival. As such, the looming TV service Apple appears poised to launch seems to be very much a derivative offering that isn’t likely to disrupt the sector all that much. A report in the Wall Street Journal (paywall, see Gizmodo’s alt. take) notes that Apple has set aside $ 1 billion for original programming, but Tim Cook’s fears that the service could tarnish Apple’s pure brand image appear to be causing some notable problems.

The report noted how at least one project fled to Amazon after Apple tried to tightly restrict the show’s political commentary. And the kind of comically inconsistent restrictions that tend to plague Apple’s app store appear to have made their way to the company’s looming TV service, including a ban on, of all things, crosses:

“Apple signed a deal for a series made by M. Night Shyamalan about a couple who lose a young child.

Before saying yes to that psychological thriller, Apple executives had a request: Please eliminate the crucifixes in the couple’s house, said people working on the project. They said executives made clear they didn’t want shows that venture into religious subjects or politics. Mr. Shyamalan wasn’t available for comment.

Of course that’s the exact opposite tack taken by streaming providers like Netflix or Amazon, which have increasingly turned to original, more edgy fare to help set themselves apart from the traditional networks. As a long list of recent awards make pretty clear, that approach is certainly working out ok. Given Apple’s more cautious approach, some employees have taken to making fun of the looming service:

“One agent said some members of Apple’s team in Los Angeles began calling themselves “expensive NBC.”

Of course this being Apple, it’s entirely possible that nobody cares that Apple’s original content lineup lacks any rough edges, and fans are likely to line up and buy the product anyway. It’s also certainly possible to create a high-quality platform with largely G-rated fare. That said, this sounds nothing like the TV revolution Apple has promised for the better part of the last decade, and too much interference with the creative process isn’t likely to help keep talent around as Apple’s never-ending quest to upend the TV apple cart stumbles forward.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.