Wikileaks Exposes CIA Hacking Tools

lcpiper said:
You believe that Anderson Cooper is a CIA Agent?
You spend too much time on Youtube man.
Click to expand...


Maybe there are some international tennis stars who are spies too!

8d5c9d9706e188d725c79f4b141b59cf.jpg
 
Zion Halcyon said:
It's not unprecedented. Operation Mockingbird.
Click to expand...

Precedence that reporters have been on the CIA payroll in years past - yes. But you made claims that have no basis in fact. Anderson Cooper? The CIA loaned Jeff Bezos money? Seriously dude....
 
Hypergreatthing said:
I've been told by CNN that checking out wikileaks and their releases is illegal and i must wait for the reporters from CNN to disseminate that kind of information.
Click to expand...

What a fucking tool.
Paraphrased, "It's illegal for you to view it but not for Main Stream Media, and we will decide what you can know and read...."
Or, "we will decide what you can see and hear and we are above the law."
 
Zion Halcyon said:
It's not unprecedented. Operation Mockingbird.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of Operation Mockingbird but it sounds like someone needed a name and they had just watched Hunger Games the night before.

But in all fairness, I'll look it up and try to see what it's about. I am restricted on what I can do from Government computers, my desktop is in a TS facility and the internet is censored more than a kindergarten computer for the kids.

OK, that didn't take long;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Operation Mockingbird was allegedly .......................
Click to expand...

Well it does have a wiki page at least.

You know, when I did intelligence work for the Army people in that line of work used to use a word, credibility, or credible, believable is pretty close.

I've gotten into some very heated discussions here on [H] and there are more than a few people here who would say that I am full of shit, not credible. Even I wouldn't use stuff like this to support a claim as if it were true. I might point to it and say "some people think this is true". But I wouldn't do so.

It's just my opinion, but I do think there are a few guys here who do think I am credible, or at least they know that when I am shown wrong, that I own up to my own bullshit and admit it. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong when I screw up.

I'm not saying you are wrong. No accusations. I'm just saying that I don't see enough substance to this, not for making claims based on it as if it's known fact.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
I've never heard of Operation Mockingbird but it sounds like someone needed a name and they had just watched Hunger Games the night before.

But in all fairness, I'll look it up and try to see what it's about. I am restricted on what I can do from Government computers, my desktop is in a TS facility and the internet is censored more than a kindergarten computer for the kids.
Click to expand...

Operation Mockingbird is actually real. Reporters in hundreds of newspapers around the world were on the CIA payroll. The CIA discovered that they could shape public opinion in their favor via the media. Go figure right? They also used media resources in foreign countries to topple current governments in power. Guatemala is a perfect example. But it should be noted that the CIA and Republican administrations were very friendly during the 50s through the 70s when this was going on in a large scale. It was George Bush, Director of the CIA at the time who was forced to put an end to it due to the fallout from the HSCA investigation that uncovered this. To suggest that the media being on CIA payrolls is a Democratic party activity isn't even laughable. William Buckley Jr is a perfect example.
 
TAP said:
Operation Mockingbird is actually real. Reporters in hundreds of newspapers around the world were on the CIA payroll. The CIA discovered that they could shape public opinion in their favor via the media. Go figure right? They also used media resources in foreign countries to topple current governments in power. Guatemala is a perfect example. But it should be noted that the CIA and Republican administrations were very friendly during the 50s through the 70s when this was going on in a large scale. It was George Bush, Director of the CIA at the time who was forced to put an end to it due to the fallout from the HSCA investigation that uncovered this. To suggest that the media being on CIA payrolls is a Democratic party activity isn't even laughable. William Buckley Jr is a perfect example.
Click to expand...

Actually I think suggesting that the CIA is somehow greatly linked to one party over the other is ridiculous. Sure, there is some grounds in the fact that the directors of these different agencies are appointed positions so the incumbent administration is definitely in charge and setting policy. But it's business that drives it, with a little party slant because you can't eliminate it altogether.

For someone to say that Mockingbird is real is maybe yes, maybe no. But here is my take. Saying Bush was "forced to put an end to it due to fallout .." is only believable if you don't accept that;
one, they weren't doing anything wrong, and
two, that they don't still do this and many other things equally slick.

This is the CIA's job, it's their task, their mission. They are supposed to be underhanded tricksters who can pull off missions, regardless of how strange and seemingly unrealistic, in order to manipulate what our enemies believe and how they make decisions. It's either that or play your cards straight up and spend a lot more time on the field of battle.

For decades Russia was bigger then us. Only nuclear deterrence, MAD, had a chance of holding them back. While I was in the Army the estimate was that within 3 weeks the Russians could over run all of Western Europe and reach the Med with the singular exception of England and they would just use WMDs to shut them down. We didn't assert any military superiority until Reagan started signing off on shit like M1s, Bradleys, B1 Bombers, dragging three freaking WW2 Battleships out of mothballs and completely overhauling and modernizing them. Prior to this military buildup it was all a big poker game. We bluffed them and we used every trick we could think of to make them believe. I was in high school in the 70s. I was in the Army during the buildup all the way up until just a little before 9/11.

Truth is, maybe there was an Operation Mockingbird, but I doubt it. I think it was just business as usual, someone caught on and sniffed out a piece of it. If you are a CIA guy and a small piece of what you are doing get's loose, you give it a cute name "Operation Mockingbird", kill it, and tell people we aren't going to do that anymore, "we're sorry". In the mean time, you get busy replacing the guys you have to let go of who are really just being moved off to something else.

Business as usual.
 
lcpiper said:
Actually I think suggesting that the CIA is somehow greatly linked to one party over the other is ridiculous. Sure, there is some grounds in the fact that the directors of these different agencies are appointed positions so the incumbent administration is definitely in charge and setting policy. But it's business that drives it, with a little party slant because you can't eliminate it altogether.

For someone to say that Mockingbird is real is maybe yes, maybe no. But here is my take. Saying Bush was "forced to put an end to it due to fallout .." is only believable if you don't accept that;
one, they weren't doing anything wrong, and
two, that they don't still do this and many other things equally slick.

This is the CIA's job, it's their task, their mission. They are supposed to be underhanded tricksters who can pull off missions, regardless of how strange and seemingly unrealistic, in order to manipulate what our enemies believe and how they make decisions. It's either that or play your cards straight up and spend a lot more time on the field of battle.

For decades Russia was bigger then us. Only nuclear deterrence, MAD, had a chance of holding them back. While I was in the Army the estimate was that within 3 weeks the Russians could over run all of Western Europe and reach the Med with the singular exception of England and they would just use WMDs to shut them down. We didn't assert any military superiority until Reagan started signing off on shit like M1s, Bradleys, B1 Bombers, dragging three freaking WW2 Battleships out of mothballs and completely overhauling and modernizing them. Prior to this military buildup it was all a big poker game. We bluffed them and we used every trick we could think of to make them believe. I was in high school in the 70s. I was in the Army during the buildup all the way up until just a little before 9/11.

Truth is, maybe there was an Operation Mockingbird, but I doubt it. I think it was just business as usual, someone caught on and sniffed out a piece of it. If you are a CIA guy and a small piece of what you are doing get's loose, you give it a cute name "Operation Mockingbird", kill it, and tell people we aren't going to do that anymore, "we're sorry". In the mean time, you get busy replacing the guys you have to let go of who are really just being moved off to something else.

Business as usual.
Click to expand...

To suggest "maybe" is denying official documentation that it did happen. It DID happen and that is the official record. And yes George Bush DID at least in the public's eyes put an end to the CIA's use of journalists. If you don't want to believe it, don't. But you can't argue with the official record.
 
TAP said:
To suggest "maybe" is denying official documentation that it did happen. It DID happen and that is the official record. And yes George Bush DID at least in the public's eyes put an end to the CIA's use of journalists. If you don't want to believe it, don't. But you can't argue with the official record.
Click to expand...

I love official documentation, I see so little of it. But since you are teasing me with it by all means, link away.

And although it's just a wiki page and all, this is what it says was truly Project Mockingbird.

Project Mockingbird
In 2007 a CIA report was declassified that is titled the Family Jewels.[11] Compiled by the CIA in 1973, it refers to a Project Mockingbird and describes a wiretap of journalists. The report was compiled at the request of then CIA director James Schlesinger, and was not declassified until 2007.

According to the report:

Project Mockingbird, a telephone intercept activity, was conducted between 12 March 1963 and 15 June 1963, and targeted two Washington based newsmen who, at the time, had been publishing news articles based on, and frequently quoting, classified materials of this Agency and others, including Top Secret and Special Intelligence.[12]
The wiretap was authorized by CIA director John McCone, "in coordination with the Attorney General (Mr. Robert Kennedy), the Secretary of Defense (Mr. Robert McNamara), and the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (Gen. Joseph Carroll)." [12]

An internal CIA biography of McCone by CIA Chief Historian David Robarge, made public under an FOIA request, identified the two reporters as Robert Allen and Paul Scott.[13] Their syndicated column, "The Allen-Scott Report," appeared in as many as three hundred papers at the height of its popularity.[14]
Click to expand...

Let me just say that wiretapping two journalists is a far far different description, officially, than a 1000s strong effort to subvert journalism throughout the world.
 
Last edited:
Cool. There might be an opening. I wonder if I could work from home. I don't want to move to Virginia... :)
 
lcpiper said:
I love official documentation, I see so little of it. But since you are teasing me with it by all means, link away.

And although it's just a wiki page and all, this is what it says was truly Project Mockingbird.



Let me just say that wiretapping two journalists is a far far different description, officially, than a 1000s strong effort to subvert journalism throughout the world.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you missed this from the same article. That Norwegian news site was meant for you. Lol!

"Wisner recruited Philip Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Davis, "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."[3]

In 1951, Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative."[4]

After 1953, the media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies".

Any questions?
 
And I have to apologize it wasn't the HSCA that brought the CIA's use of journalists to light. It was the Church Committee.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yep, I wouldn't be surprised if this results in some U.S. tech company stock taking a hit tomorrow. People, both domestic and foreign don't want to buy software or hardware with backdoors.

That, and the below kind of goes without saying. If this is as big as suggested, there could be open 0-days on just about every phone and computer in the world about now, and with this leak, the guys looking to open bank accounts and credit cards in your name have access to it.


Makes me wonder if that backdoor that was detected in Netgears routers a couple of years ago was related to this as well.

I can't help but agree with the reasoning that Backdoors Are Against US National Interest.

It's not a matter of IF they get exposed, but when. And guess what happens then? Massive financial theft, potential theft of trade secrets and maybe even classified documents, you name it.

IN a narrow targeted capacity, the CIA using hacking and various cyber warfare techniques to defeat those who are an actual threat to our nation is not necessarily a bad thing. Software will always have flaws., Paying or coercing companies to create backdoors? In a free society, there ought to be a complete ban on that.
Click to expand...

And these same people are perfectly fine buying a Samsung or Huawei device.

There's holes in everything. The difference is who is legally able to target you, and if you even are worth being targeted.

Protip - Unless you work w/ the government or some high-tech industry no one gives a shit about you outside of organized crime trying to steal your money/identity.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yep, I wouldn't be surprised if this results in some U.S. tech company stock taking a hit tomorrow. People, both domestic and foreign don't want to buy software or hardware with backdoors.

That, and the below kind of goes without saying. If this is as big as suggested, there could be open 0-days on just about every phone and computer in the world about now, and with this leak, the guys looking to open bank accounts and credit cards in your name have access to it.


Makes me wonder if that backdoor that was detected in Netgears routers a couple of years ago was related to this as well.

I can't help but agree with the reasoning that Backdoors Are Against US National Interest.

It's not a matter of IF they get exposed, but when. And guess what happens then? Massive financial theft, potential theft of trade secrets and maybe even classified documents, you name it.

IN a narrow targeted capacity, the CIA using hacking and various cyber warfare techniques to defeat those who are an actual threat to our nation is not necessarily a bad thing. Software will always have flaws., Paying or coercing companies to create backdoors? In a free society, there ought to be a complete ban on that.
Click to expand...

This is relevant too:

upload_2017-3-7_19-34-24.png


Link
 
Mchart said:
Protip - Unless you work w/ the government or some high-tech industry no one gives a shit about you outside of organized crime trying to steal your money/identity.
Click to expand...

Sure, but who wants their identity stolen? Credit cards opened in their name, credit history ruined, etc. etc?

And if companies can't trust their IT tech from U.S. based companies, and they want to maintain their trade secrets, they are going to buy it from someone else. Now U.S. tech industry gets hurt, potentially costing jobs and hurting the economy.

This shit is a bad idea all around, and it hurts us more than it helps us.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Sure, but who wants their identity stolen? Credit cards opened in their name, credit history ruined, etc. etc?

And if companies can't trust their IT tech from U.S. based companies, and they want to maintain their trade secrets, they are going to buy it from someone else. Now U.S. tech industry gets hurt, potentially costing jobs and hurting the economy.

This shit is a bad idea all around, and it hurts us more than it helps us.
Click to expand...

You are laughably misinformed if you think any major US company would be better off trusting Huawei (Or any company majority owned by ethnic Chinese) then a US based one.
 
Mchart said:
You are laughably misinformed if you think any major US company would be better off trusting Huawei (Or any company majority owned by ethnic Chinese) then a US based one.
Click to expand...

No, I would trust Huaiwei less. Much much less.

I wouldn't be surprised if it grows the business of the few European companies in this sector though. How's Alcatel-Lucent doing these days?
 
TAP said:
Not sure how you missed this from the same article. That Norwegian news site was meant for you. Lol!

"Wisner recruited Philip Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Davis, "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."[3]

In 1951, Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative."[4]

After 1953, the media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies".

Any questions?
Click to expand...

Yes, who is Deborah Davis and how did she come by this information? The book that is the sole source of these allegations is published by some low-rent publisher that also did Chomsky's stuff, and her only background is as an investigative reporter for the Village Voice...not saying it isn't possibly correct, but looking at the placement of the source you're using for all of these pretty substantial allegations, the source does not appear credible on the first look.

Even one of the chosen quotes about the books states these to be theories, meaning unsubstantiated:

Worth reading ... Davis's theories about ties between the Post and government merit publication and discussion. - The Nation
Click to expand...
 
Mchart said:
You are laughably misinformed if you think any major US company would be better off trusting Huawei (Or any company majority owned by ethnic Chinese) then a US based one.
Click to expand...

Also, one of the really sad parts about this is that it gives the Russia's, the China's and the North Korea's of the world a PR victory, as they can no paint a picture of moral false equivalence between our free society and their authoritarian rule, and also allows them to push back when we try to get them to limit their human rights abuses and big brother states.

I know, We all suspected this before, but actually knowing it now? This is really just sad. Very depressing.
 
1o57 said:
Incorrect statement.
Click to expand...


Not the only way, but probably the most likely way. I mean, stuxnet, and those exploits that can leak information to a drone outside your window by controlling and blinking your HDD LED have taught us that airgapping isn't fool proof, but getting around it sure is time consuming and annoying.

The Wikileaks page said that it was due to good old fashioned human error. People checking out the files and passing them around amongst themselves in an insecure manner, until someone decided to submit it to Wikileaks.

That - of course - assumes you believe Wikileaks, which isn't necessarily a sure thing either.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Not the only way, but probably the most likely way. I mean, stuxnet, and those exploits that can leak information to a drone outside your window by controlling and blinking your HDD LED have taught us that airgapping isn't fool proof, but getting around it sure is time consuming and annoying.

The Wikileaks page said that it was due to good old fashioned human error. People checking out the files and passing them around amongst themselves in an insecure manner, until someone decided to submit it to Wikileaks.

That - of course - assumes you believe Wikileaks, which isn't necessarily a sure thing either.
Click to expand...

Other methods aren't necessarily that elaborate.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
I had to laugh about the instantaneous determination "it was the Russians".

"The intelligence agencies found the signature of Russian hackers"

I found this hard to believe, so I kept following this thread of news for more information. What did I discover? The "signature" they were referring to was the name of the founder of the KGB, in plain text, in a piece of malware supposedly left behind by the "hackers". Really? The KGB has custom radioactive isotopes, only able to be made within nuclear reactors, made to order for assassinations, but they leave behind more tracks than a Nigerian scammer? Sounds much more like an influence operation intended to create a false narrative.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll bite. What's the truth then?
 
This should be news to every lawyer in the country, anything digital can be altered/distorted/falsified and therefore cannot be used as evidence of any kind!
 
Even the gawd damn CIA port their software to Linux, pay attention Adobe.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
The only two ways you can comprimise an air gapped system:

1. Install some type of wireless component
2. Transfer storage via some port like USB.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not entirely true:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/15/air_gap_breached_by_disk_drive_noise/
https://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/mind-gap-are-air-gapped-systems-safe-breaches

As someone who lives outside the USA (and who is also hungry and wants to go buy some lunch,) I'll reserve my opinion on other aspects of the leak until later.
 
TAP said:
Not sure how you missed this from the same article. That Norwegian news site was meant for you. Lol!

"Wisner recruited Philip Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Davis, "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."[3]

In 1951, Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative."[4]

After 1953, the media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies".

Any questions?
Click to expand...


Deborah Davis ..... She has been the big push behind this Operation Mockingbird claim, she always has.

Now I admitted that the CIA has used the media, and I even suggested that they still do as a routine part of their business. What I am challenging is the idea that there is a special Operation called Mockingbird that Bush had to shut down, etc.

Look, it's like you find out that some bank is doing something a little underhanded with people's IRA investments. A reporter finds out and the reporter feels that it's illegal and tries to out the bank hoping public pressure will stop it. The bank says "oh OK, we'll stop. But the reality is that all banks are doing this and non of them have any intention to stop unless the law forces them too because to them, this is just a part of their normal business. Just because some reporter get's his ass in a cinch over it that's no reason to stop time proven best business practices.

You get my drift?

There is something else too. Where do you draw the line in when you claim someone is working for the CIA?

If I use an Agent and he is a plant in a Newsroom, and he slants the news in order to influence public perception, that would be an example related from this story. I'm pretty sure this guy would have a badge and be a signed employee right?

Now what about a newsman who is a source, when he hears something that the CIA says they are interested in, he let's them know, and sometimes they turn him onto something that is good for him, quid pro-quo right? Scratch my back ....

And what about an Agent who is using his position as a foreign corespondent working overseas and "recruiting sources" both for his news job (which is a cover), and for the CIA ? That's a pretty good cover isn't it? I mean that is a natural cover and it's also the best known and most suspected cover ever. No newsman can travel to another country and not immediately be a suspected spy the moment he hits immigration and customs. It's so obvious it's almost ridiculous to even attempt it. But some countries are friendlier than others and sometimes you can get away with the obvious because the overall risk is low from our friends, the spy that you know.
 
Last edited:
GDI Lord said:
Well, that's not entirely true:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/15/air_gap_breached_by_disk_drive_noise/
https://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/mind-gap-are-air-gapped-systems-safe-breaches

As someone who lives outside the USA (and who is also hungry and wants to go buy some lunch,) I'll reserve my opinion on other aspects of the leak until later.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between prof of concept and workable techniques. Even basic physical security measures make these impossible to exploit.

Still, DigitalGriffen did neglect one very old school technique. An insider who has access who is willing to simply walk out and tell what he knows. Information reconstructed from memory.
 
celeron300 said:
Is there a firewall patch or software that can effectively block this snooping?
Click to expand...

Doubtful. This isn't even the full extent of the documents; more to come.

I don't think we know the dates on these docs either. The CIA could have developed newer tools since those docs were released.
 
vegeta535 said:
This is why we have shitty bandwidth in the states. The CIA, NSA and stuff hogging all the bandwidth streaming our lives.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, perhaps it's all the people we let in this country who have no intention of becoming citizens. In simple terms, we allow many times more foreigners to live and work in the US then at any time previously. You don't think we just trust them to be on their best behavior while they are here do you? You don't think they enjoy the same protections from our constitution do you? Once they reach what is called "US Person Status", then they get treated like citizens, until then, they are foreigners and ask Merkel if we listen to the phones of foreigners?
 
I think the CIA and others went about things wrong from the start. Instead of recruiting young rebellious hacker types they should have simply built their secure testbeds and paid the hackers to break them and tell us how they broke in. Then resecure and turn them loose to try and trash them again. You are still paying them just like an employee, but you don't have to trust them with anything.

Break it and get paid, if the money is good enough you'll have all the help you need.
 
lcpiper said:
I think the CIA and others went about things wrong from the start. Instead of recruiting young rebellious hacker types they should have simply built their secure testbeds and paid the hackers to break them and tell us how they broke in. Then resecure and turn them loose to try and trash them again. You are still paying them just like an employee, but you don't have to trust them with anything.

Break it and get paid, if the money is good enough you'll have all the help you need.
Click to expand...

Only 1 flaw in your plan. CIA pays your $50,000 for the hole. Russians,r Chinese, North Koreans, or Iranians pay you $150,000.

Hopefully a hacker will be ethical and choose his host country. But we can't guarantee that sadly.

I still think the air gapped + white list approach is the best way. While white listing can be subject to IP spoofing & man in the middle attacks, if the communications are always hand shook with a mathematical challenge to verify the machine is valid, (each machine with it's own unique mathematical challenge response key) outside threats could be cut down.

Of course that would knee cap everyone at work from visiting places like msdn, yahoo, or gmail. But if you are in a secure facility, you shouldn't be visiting those places any way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lcpiper said:
I think the CIA and others went about things wrong from the start. Instead of recruiting young rebellious hacker types they should have simply built their secure testbeds and paid the hackers to break them and tell us how they broke in.
Click to expand...

This was one of my complaints from the start. Recruiting these young kids, that don't know what is right, safe, or ethically correct from a wet diaper, will lead to dangerous situations later on. Older employees tend to be more "predictable" with a past history that can be analyzed for potential threats.

Young kids may be bright, innovative, quick, and on to the latest tech, but it's like asking to get to California as quick as possible in a Veyron with them driving. You're taking a hell of a risk.

With the shortage of good talent, US defense forces are in a tough position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top