Mediaboss Marketing

I try not to jump on bandwagons, but with so much coverage of the worldwideWannaCrymess, I do have a few things to say that you may not have seen elsewhere.

There's beenplentyofmediacoverageso I'll just give a high level overview of what happened. Like many other nations, the USNational Security Agency(NSA) studies computer flaws and develops ways to attack them. TheShadowBrokersare a hacker group who started leaking some of these NSA-developed attacks in the second half of 2016. TheApril 2017 editionof their leaks included the code that enabled the WannaCry attack.

The attack that started on Thurs May 11 consisted of two parts. One would encrypt files so that the owner could not get access to their files (commonly called "CryptoWare"). The other part could get remote access to any vulnerable computer. This was a very powerful combination and this is the first time we've seen this kind of auto-spreading cryptoware. Once infected, the victim sees a screen that directs them to pay a ransom in Bitcoin so the whole attack is considered ransomware.

Now, Microsoft did release a patch in March to fix some of these problems, in particular, the remote access part. So no problem, right? Desktops and laptops are usually easier to patch, and you should always have your home systems set to automatically update. But servers need more testing to assure that applications continue to work as expected.

Patching was a critical part of the fix, but there was definitely more to it including things like new anti-virus signatures, whitelisting, intrusion prevention signatures and firewall rules.

One reason healthcare orgs seemed to be hit hard, including the BritishNational Health Service(NHS) is that healthcare often has many older systems and applications. These can be hard to update. With NHS, most of their desktop systems were running Windows XP!

But now ... who is actually to blame?

Inhispodcast, episode 21,Graham Cluleyasked this question. In particular, the question was, which of Microsoft, NSA, Shadow Brokers are to blame. You can listen to hear what they said.

Here's my opinion. There's one group to blame and then an additional area of concern.

The "blame" goes to those who carried out the exploit!

Yes, they took advantage of existing vulnerabilities and companies that didn't protect their systems, but that's beside the point. I mean, just because a bank has a welcome mat at the door doesn't mean you're allowed to rob it.

Now, what about these software vulnerabilities? Why do we keep having these problems? Someone has to write these in first place. I'm not picking on software developers. I've been one. It's a hard job. Code is very complex. This is something we call secure software engineering and it's not easy, but there are tools available to help us.

For additional reading, security expertMarcus Ranumwastalking about this wholecomplexity issue12 or more years ago.

And, not to pick on Microsoft, but why do we give everyone a computer with a general purpose operating system when most people only do specific things like email or word processing which can both be accomplished inside a browser? The more we can simplify the better off we'll be.

And then there's the correspondingmonocultureproblemwe were discussing 15-20 years ago: If everyone's computer is basically the same,then one problem can take them all out (thinkpotatoblight). And that seems to happen pretty regularly (to computers, not crops). The answer here is special purpose computing, and the more scaled down the better. I'm a big fan of "thin" systems like Chromebooks.

What can you do to protect yourself?

At home and at work: be careful with links and attachments.

At work: follow security policies and work with your IT team on all technology needs (if it uses electricity, it could pose a security issue).

At home: use the default for windows updates, useSecunia PSI, if you use Windows turn on the all the default protections and, of course,back up your data.

There are many good tools available for home backups includingCarboniteandCrashPlan, or even Microsoft OneDrive or Google Drive. And two good choices for encrypting data arebitlockerandveracrypt.

You need to take these kinds of steps now because we are going to see more new and bigger attacks coming in the future.

This post originally appeared on Barry Caplins Security and Coffeeblog.

Excerpt from:
Hackers, the NSA, Microsoft or Shadow Brokers: Who's really to blame for WannaCry? - Healthcare IT News (blog)

Recode

Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of US citizens Miami Herald Parts of the ruling were redacted, including sections that give an indication of the extent of the illegal surveillance, which the NSA told the court in a Jan. 3 notice was partly the fault of human error and system design issues rather than ... The nation's top tech companies are asking Congress to reform a key NSA surveillance programRecode Tech giants to Congress: Please change how NSA spies on peopleCNET Facebook, Google (but not Apple) join in asking Congress to reform government surveillance programSilicon Valley Business Journal Liberty Nation (registration) (blog) -RT -CNNMoney all 17 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of US citizens - Miami Herald

Former head of the National Security Agency and CIA Michael Hayden said Jared Kushner's discussions about establishing a backchannel with the Kremlin were ignorant and naive, and said the notion he would do so because of distrust for the Obama administration suggests "we're in a really dark place as a society."

"Well, Michael, right now I'm going with naivete, and that's not particularly very comforting to me," Hayden said in an interview with CNN's Michael Smerconish on Saturday. "I mean what manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate idea?"

The Washington Post reported Friday that Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and a senior adviser at the White House, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak discussed setting up a secret and secure communications channel between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin.

Kushner allegedly suggested using U.S.-based Russian diplomatic facilities for the communications to protect their discussions from any monitoring by the U.S. government, Kislyak said.

Hayden, whose career with the NSA and CIA spans three presidential administrations, said the notion that Kushner wanted to avoid monitoring suggests that Trump didn't trust the previous administration.

Actions borne out of that distrust "suggests we're in a really dark place as a society," Hayden said.

"Here you are willing to risk the perception of secret communications with your alleged co-conspirator because you feared the existing government so much," he said.

When asked what how he believed Kislyak responded to Kushner's suggestion of setting up backchannels, Hayden said the request "goes so far out of the norm that he was probably shocked."

Read the original:
Former NSA, CIA head: Kushner's attempts to set up backchannel with Russia ignorant, naive - Washington Examiner

National Security Agency (NSA) Director Admiral Michael Rogers participates in a session at the third annual Intelligence and National Security Summit in Washington, U.S., September 8, 2016. REUTERS/Gary Cameron/File Photo

Reports surfaced on Friday that National Security Agency (NSA) chief Mike Rogers told NSA workers that there is evidence that President Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Former NSA agent John Schindler wrote in the New York Observer Friday that Rogers addressed an agency-wide town hall meeting this week that was broadcast to all of the agencys facilities around the world. In it, Rogers purportedly confirmed reports that came out last week alleging that Trump asked him to speak out against the Russia investigation.

Rogers, according to current NSA agents with whom Schindler claims to have spoken who has a very dodgy reputation in some circles said that he has seen intelligence information regarding contacts between Trump and the Kremlin.

There is no question that we [meaning NSA] have evidence of election involvement and questionable contacts with the Russians, the director reportedly said.

NSA employees walked out of the town hall impressed by the directors forthright discussion of his interactions with the Trump administration, particularly with how Rogers insisted that he had no desire to politicize the situation beyond what the president has already done, Schindler said.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should subpoena Rogers, Schindler said, and find out what he knows with regard to Trump and the 2016 campaign.

Schindler is regarded by some people as a conspiracy theorist along the lines of former Heat Street editor Louise Mensch, with whom Schindler enjoys an amiable online relationship. The two publish scoops reinforcing each other and share a common enemy in those who declare that anti-Trumpists are dabbling in red-baiting and conspiracy mongering.

However, as a former agent, Schindler has deep ties at the NSA.

Follow this link:
Did Admiral Mike Rogers tell the NSA that Trump colluded with the ... - Raw Story

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

The news that Donald Trump asked the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, and the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign to influence the presidential election may, or may not, contribute to the overall emerging picture of obstruction of justice by the president.

This revelation underscores several important points about the investigation.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

First, as is so often the case in criminal investigations, the devil is in the details. That is particularly true in this case, because the investigation will likely focus on Trumps intent, that is, whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with or impede the FBI investigation, meaning with an improper purpose.

Assessing intent requires a close examination of direct evidence (like Trumps own statements about his intent), and circumstantial evidence (including Trumps actions and words before, during and after the alleged acts of obstruction).

On the face of it, its not evident that Trumps request to Coats and Rogers to comment publicly on the state of the evidence amounts to obstruction. However, according to the Washington Post article , several officials interpreted Trumps request as an attempt to interfere with the investigation.

(That said, NBC News is reporting from a single source that a former official told NBC News that Coats and Rogers did not believe they were being asked to do something illegal. It was more of a public relations request.)

Determining what Trump intended will require establishing and closely analyzing what precisely he said, and the context of his words. Was he clumsily trying to get information out to the public, or was he trying to put pressure on the FBIs investigation?

Admiral Michael Rogers, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, testifies during a House Armed Services Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 4, 2015. Drew Angerer/Getty

How others understood Trumps words at the time will often be powerful evidence of how they were intended, but not always determinative.

Second, despite the steady revelations over the last two weeks, there may not ultimately be a smoking gun, a single piece of evidence that definitively establishes Trumps intent.

It is more likely that his intent will be discerned from all the available evidence considered together, in this case Trumps alleged request of then-FBI Director James Comey to declare his loyalty, Trumps privately expressed hope to Comey that he find a way to let the Flynn investigation go, Trumps firing of Comey, the false narrative that Trump created about the firing, Trumps statements to the Russians about dismissing Comey and Trumps own public statements about what he did.

This new revelation about Trumps request to Coats and Rogers, once its details are filled in, will need to be assessed along with all these other pieces of evidence.

Perhaps more damning than the Coats and Rogers revelation, the Washington Post story also contained the following alarming disclosure:

In addition to the requests to Coats and Rogers, senior White House officials sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn, Trumps former national security adviser, according to people familiar with the matter. The officials said the White House appeared uncertain about its power to influence the FBI.

Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter? one official said of the line of questioning from the White House.

It is difficult to believe that the senior White House officials referenced here were not being encouraged or directed by Trump to find a way to shut down the FBIs investigation. What subordinates said at the time, how they behaved, and what instructions they received from above will also help establish whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.

Third, there will always be some explanation. Following the revelation that Trump told the Russians that Comey was a nut job and that firing him had relieved great pressure on the President, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson both labored to offer benign (though notably different) explanations for Trumps words.

It would not be the first time in this affair that administration officials have sought to spin (or lie about) the facts. Investigators, and the public, will need to assess these explanations, relying in part on their common sense, to decide whether they are plausible on their face and how they fit (or dont fit) with all the available evidence.

Finally, it is again worth remembering that the question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, to a criminal standard, is just one part of the larger inquiry. The question of criminality cannot be the beginning and end of the investigation.

Important also is to ask whether Trump or any administration officials acted unethically; in violation of rules, regulations, or policy; incompetently; or in a manner that could undermine U.S. security or interests.

The story about Trumps request to Coats and Rogers may contribute to the obstruction inquiry, but it raises many of these other questions as well. For example, the Post cites senior intelligence officials who saw the requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies.

For this reason, it is essential that the congressional investigations continue to probe these larger questions and to assess whether personnel, policy, or legislative reforms are warranted.

Alex Whiting is a Professor of Practice at Harvard Law School. From 2010-13, he served as the Investigation Coordinator and the Prosecution Coordinator in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.

Read the original:
Why Did Trump Tell NSA Chiefs to Deny Russian Plot? - Newsweek