Regarding that dump yesterday -- that was only 1% of what's coming.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-claims-99-percent-of-its-cia-documents-not-yet-released/

QuoteLess than one percent of WikiLeaks' CIA files were released in yesterday's document dump, the anti-secrecy organization claimed Wednesday.

WikiLeaks has already indicated that its cache of stolen CIA files, which the group is calling "Vault 7," will be dripped out over a series of releases.

I don't think Lynch, Clapper, and Hussein will be able to withstand this one.  I'm sure Hillary is in there as well.  They might as well walk into the FBI and just turn themselves in.

Quote from: Hoofer on March 08, 2017, 10:02:08 AM
Isn't is illegal to 1. posess, 2. release, 3. view classified documents (your not suppose to)?

I see no rational for digging through something you're not suppose to - when there are laws ....

There are basically three types of clearances a person can use to gain access to different levels of material: Confidential (C), Secret (S), and Top Secret (TS). There are also compartmentalized TS clearances that come into play with specific groups. Compartmentalization limits how much damage can be done if, somehow, a leak develops.

It's funny. At companies that deal with classified material in the midwest, not many get Top Secret clearances. Most people that need a clearance to do their jobs have a Secret clearance and they need to operate with an agreement on a contract and have a need-to-know to even touch a classified document. There is a select group who have TS clearances and an even smaller group with compartmentalized TS clearances. However, in Washington D.C., about everyone has a Top Secret clearance - they seem to be much less careful with giving out the clearances for some reason. The same laws exist, but I wonder if they police need-to-know as well as they do outside of Washington.

You wouldn't even think about possessing classified information outside an approved facility and certainly would never even think about releasing information to someone not under the agreement unless you are consciously breaking the law as it's a major violation of the law punishable by a harsh sentence.

Accessing classified information for which you are not entitled is also breaking the law. So there is NO LEGAL digging through classified material. Now, it may be that classified information that you are not read-in on is in the same approved storage as a document that you are read-in on. But, even then, it's illegal to look at classified information that you are not read-in on.

Quote from: Bronx on March 08, 2017, 07:51:42 AM
Are you listening to the TV or is your TV listening to you....?

CIA using a weird TV trick to spy into YOUR living room!?

Investigative organization WikiLeaks published thousands of documents purportedly taken from the Central Intelligence Agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence on Tuesday, a dramatic release that appears to expose intimate details of America's cyber-espionage toolkit.

Hillary EMBARRASSED in leaked tape (watch here) [sponsored]

But there is one document that should serve as a horrifying wake-up call for all Americans — and it means the CIA could be spying on you in your own home, through your television.

The more than 8,000 documents cover a host of technical topics, including what appears to be a discussion about how to compromise smart televisions and turn them into improvised surveillance devices.

The specific code, called Weeping Angel, uses Samsung "smart" TVs as listening devices.

READ MORE....
https://thehornnews.com/weird-trick-cia-using-spy-living-room/

Lemme tell ya a little story here from the late 90's, when I had just retired and was going into private security. I ran across a guy who was a real tech head, he was into all this remote surveillance camera stuff etc. Nice guy but a little odd if you know what I mean. He used to do polygraph's for armored car companies and a few other places. One day I'm in his office and we are watching something on his TV, the guy turns to me out of the blue with this strange look on his face and says something like.

Did you know that while we are watching TV...the TV is watching us back?.....

Uh Yeah sure.....(uh oh. that's it he's nuts, next he'll be telling me bigfoot stories       )

Then he goes on to say something very profound....like: " A TV can be the best surveillance tool of all, everyone has one, with cable you can get right into it...real easy".

Shudder.

Quote from: taxed on March 08, 2017, 04:24:24 PM
Regarding that dump yesterday -- that was only 1% of what's coming.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-claims-99-percent-of-its-cia-documents-not-yet-released/

I don't think Lynch, Clapper, and Hussein will be able to withstand this one.  I'm sure Hillary is in there as well.  They might as well walk into the FBI and just turn themselves in.

Assange said awhile back that the stuff he had yet to release was so out there, that he wondered if anyone will ever grasp it's enormity because it's nearly impossible to wrap your mind around that it's actually happening, or was even remotely possible.
All summarized of course, but all of it seemed surreal.

Quote from: topside on March 08, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
There are basically three types of clearances a person can use to gain access to different levels of material: Confidential (C), Secret (S), and Top Secret (TS). There are also compartmentalized TS clearances that come into play with specific groups. Compartmentalization limits how much damage can be done if, somehow, a leak develops.

It's funny. At companies that deal with classified material in the midwest, not many get Top Secret clearances. Most people that need a clearance to do their jobs have a Secret clearance and they need to operate with an agreement on a contract and have a need-to-know to even touch a classified document. There is a select group who have TS clearances and an even smaller group with compartmentalized TS clearances. However, in Washington D.C., about everyone has a Top Secret clearance - they seem to be much less careful with giving out the clearances for some reason. The same laws exist, but I wonder if they police need-to-know as well as they do outside of Washington.

You wouldn't even think about possessing classified information outside an approved facility and certainly would never even think about releasing information to someone not under the agreement unless you are consciously breaking the law as it's a major violation of the law punishable by a harsh sentence.

Accessing classified information for which you are not entitled is also breaking the law. So there is NO LEGAL digging through classified material. Now, it may be that classified information that you are not read-in on is in the same approved storage as a document that you are read-in on. But, even then, it's illegal to look at classified information that you are not read-in on.

Oh - and to tag onto this. When a security system is run correctly, the weakest link are those who control access to the classified information. They aren't supposed review any of it but are supposed to control where it's stored and make sure those who have access have a need to know. But I've seen many cases when the ones trained and put in charge of the storage of the materials are basically security guard level. And the job of managing classified information is so, so boring. Lot's of i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed. So if someone comes by and offers a lot of money to the one managing the information, they can get access to a broad amount of information. That's a pretty weak link.

Now if you add people without a need-to-know being given access to broad sets of classified information like those in government power, say congressmen, presidents, secretary of states, whomever, then you open up more potential for a security breach. But those in power are usually hard to motivate to release classified materials - unless they get lazy and store it on a personal server at home or something (Hillary, really?). But in this current environment, the Dims are so desperate I could imagine them dumping critical information just to try and discredit the WH ability to operate and weaken President Trump.

It's very important to have checks on those who control the storage of information AND limit access to those who truly have a need-to-know.

It's such terrible news that the CIA breach happened - major setback for our ops. The good news is that there are other agencies that are isolated (compartmented) from the CIA - so they will only be affected in as much as their operations use the same techniques as the CIA. It will be interesting and very important to find out how the CIA breach occurred.

Quote from: taxed on March 08, 2017, 04:24:24 PM
Regarding that dump yesterday -- that was only 1% of what's coming.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-claims-99-percent-of-its-cia-documents-not-yet-released/

I don't think Lynch, Clapper, and Hussein will be able to withstand this one.  I'm sure Hillary is in there as well.  They might as well walk into the FBI and just turn themselves in.

Unfortunately, the NSA has also been doing its share of wiretaps, all through the Hussein era. This one's a bit more technical, from 2015...

QuoteCANCUN, Mexico — In 2009, one or more prestigious researchers received a CD by mail that contained pictures and other materials from a recent scientific conference they attended in Houston. The scientists didn't know it then, but the disc also delivered a malicious payload developed by a highly advanced hacking operation that had been active since at least 2001. The CD, it seems, was tampered with on its way through the mail.

It wasn't the first time the operators—dubbed the "Equation Group" by researchers from Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab—had secretly intercepted a package in transit, booby-trapped its contents, and sent it to its intended destination. In 2002 or 2003, Equation Group members did something similar with an Oracle database installation CD in order to infect a different target with malware from the group's extensive library. (Kaspersky settled on the name Equation Group because of members' strong affinity for encryption algorithms, advanced obfuscation methods, and sophisticated techniques.)

Kaspersky researchers have documented 500 infections by Equation Group in at least 42 countries, with Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Syria, and Mali topping the list. Because of a self-destruct mechanism built into the malware, the researchers suspect that this is just a tiny percentage of the total; the actual number of victims likely reaches into the tens of thousands.....

https://arstechnica.com/security/2015/02/how-omnipotent-hackers-tied-to-the-nsa-hid-for-14-years-and-were-found-at-last/

This one's got some interesting graphics showing who got tapped most often. The NSA claims it has only marginal activity within U.S. borders.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on March 08, 2017, 04:37:02 PM

Lemme tell ya a little story here from the late 90's, when I had just retired and was going into private security. I ran across a guy who was a real tech head, he was into all this remote surveillance camera stuff etc. Nice guy but a little odd if you know what I mean. He used to do polygraph's for armored car companies and a few other places. One day I'm in his office and we are watching something on his TV, the guy turns to me out of the blue with this strange look on his face and says something like.

Did you know that while we are watching TV...the TV is watching us back?.....

Uh Yeah sure.....(uh oh. that's it he's nuts, next he'll be telling me bigfoot stories       )

Then he goes on to say something very profound....like: " A TV can be the best surveillance tool of all, everyone has one, with cable you can get right into it...real easy".

Shudder.

From a safe distance, the CRT scans of a TV (or monitor) can be received and recreated on another screen - what you're viewing, can be viewed elsewhere.  The technology from the '80s or earlier, picks up the RF generated by monitors - was part of surveillance packages, like bouncing a laser off a window & amplifying the signal to hear what's going on inside a building/house.

If "Air-gapping" didn't make you secure 35yrs ago, why would people assume they're secure with all the wireless technology today - It's LESS secure! 

The first responder, hand-held 2-way digital radios, come with 2 interesting features, an 'officer down' button, and 'remote control' that allows the radio to be turned on, in transmit or receive, without showing any indication it actually is 'on'.

There's a lot of this stuff going on, but everything still requires the 'bandwidth' and 'storage'.  Bandwidth to transmit/receive the data, without which, nothing happens.  Sort of like someone flying a drone, if the signal is lost, and it can't see or hear the intended target (like it's blind and deaf), the rest is pointless.  Still I'd rather give them the 'lead test'...  maybe a GHz pulse weapon to clear it's ROM - that would be funny.

Quote from: Hoofer on March 09, 2017, 05:23:31 AM
From a safe distance, the CRT scans of a TV (or monitor) can be received and recreated on another screen - what you're viewing, can be viewed elsewhere.  The technology from the '80s or earlier, picks up the RF generated by monitors - was part of surveillance packages, like bouncing a laser off a window & amplifying the signal to hear what's going on inside a building/house.

If "Air-gapping" didn't make you secure 35yrs ago, why would people assume they're secure with all the wireless technology today - It's LESS secure! 

The first responder, hand-held 2-way digital radios, come with 2 interesting features, an 'officer down' button, and 'remote control' that allows the radio to be turned on, in transmit or receive, without showing any indication it actually is 'on'.

There's a lot of this stuff going on, but everything still requires the 'bandwidth' and 'storage'.  Bandwidth to transmit/receive the data, without which, nothing happens.  Sort of like someone flying a drone, if the signal is lost, and it can't see or hear the intended target (like it's blind and deaf), the rest is pointless.  Still I'd rather give them the 'lead test'...  maybe a GHz pulse weapon to clear it's ROM - that would be funny.

I'll confirm what Hoofer is saying based on stuff I played with or common logic about electronics - none of this is classified: 

1. TV's can be monitored at a distance. So if you're typing at a computer someone can use a directional antenna to see what you see on your screen.
2. Using a window as a audio transducer works - you can bounce a laser off a window and monitor a conversation.
3. Electronics can be powered on remotely and can run a subset of the internal devices if there is enough energy in the device, e.g., someone could enable the microphone in a cell phone and have it transmit what is being said in a room and you wouldn't even know the phone is on.
4. A slight extension to 3. is that if a TV contains a camera then it can be hacked and used to look back at you.

Here is an example of 4.:

QuoteSamsung's 2012 top-of-the-line plasmas and LED HDTVs offer new features never before available within a television including a built-in, internally wired HD camera, twin microphones, face tracking and speech recognition. While these features give you unprecedented control over an HDTV, the devices themselves, more similar than ever to a personal computer, may allow hackers or even Samsung to see and hear you and your family, and collect extremely personal data.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/your-tv-watching-you-latest-models-raise-concerns-483619

Here is something that is not true:

- A standard CRT TV or even newer LED, plasma, or other TV technologies that do not contain a camera or microphone cannot be used to look back at you or listen to you. It might be the case that the screen could be used as a source to scan a room and pick up reflection from another sensor to examine the contents of a room (like LIDAR) but I haven't seen that use yet and I am purely speculating on this mode. In fact, I've not ever seen an LED TV scanned - CRT TV's can be scanned because the electron beam creates so much electromagnetic energy that it can be easily detected by a receiver from a distance but the LEDs used in a TV are low energy so difficult (if not impossible) to detect at a distance via electromagnetic radiation. Not sure about conducted radiation but doubt it. Of course, someone could get a picture of what you're working on through a window with some of the fancy new camera tech. if there is a window. 

Quote from: Hoofer on March 09, 2017, 05:23:31 AM
From a safe distance, the CRT scans of a TV (or monitor) can be received and recreated on another screen - what you're viewing, can be viewed elsewhere.  The technology from the '80s or earlier, picks up the RF generated by monitors - was part of surveillance packages, like bouncing a laser off a window & amplifying the signal to hear what's going on inside a building/house.

If "Air-gapping" didn't make you secure 35yrs ago, why would people assume they're secure with all the wireless technology today - It's LESS secure! 

The first responder, hand-held 2-way digital radios, come with 2 interesting features, an 'officer down' button, and 'remote control' that allows the radio to be turned on, in transmit or receive, without showing any indication it actually is 'on'.

There's a lot of this stuff going on, but everything still requires the 'bandwidth' and 'storage'.  Bandwidth to transmit/receive the data, without which, nothing happens.  Sort of like someone flying a drone, if the signal is lost, and it can't see or hear the intended target (like it's blind and deaf), the rest is pointless.  Still I'd rather give them the 'lead test'...  maybe a GHz pulse weapon to clear it's ROM - that would be funny.

Those 'pulse weapons' which are used to fry radio signals, UHF and VHF  et al were routinely used by special forces back in the 1980's. The modern day ones are much more sophisticated.

Also my understanding is these spy geeks were tapping into fiber optic cable back in the 90's without going directly into the wire.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on March 09, 2017, 05:49:55 AM
Those 'pulse weapons' which are used to fry radio signals, UHF and VHF  et al were routinely used by special forces back in the 1980's. The modern day ones are much more sophisticated.

Also my understanding is these spy geeks were tapping into fiber optic cable back in the 90's without going directly into the wire.

Good points Billy. Just to tag on (all unclassified): 

1. Electromagnetic pulses can be generated that will fry electronics from a distance.
2. The old phone wires had large numbers of twisted pairs embedded and there are ways to quick-connect around the cable and monitor what's going through the entire cable and isolate what is on a twisted pair - to an extent - and then you can listen into multiple conversations. I am not aware of a similar quick-connect technology to monitor fiber optic cable - the optical electromagnetic energy doesn't propagate far and the bandwidths are much larger. I would guess that most fiber surveillance is done by putting a tap on the cable - basically a fiber splitter - that brings our each fiber for consideration. If you do that, it's not purely passive and can be detected by a change in signal level when the tap is added or removed.

Quote from: Hoofer on March 09, 2017, 05:23:31 AM
Bandwidth to transmit/receive the data, without which, nothing happens.  Sort of like someone flying a drone, if the signal is lost, and it can't see or hear the intended target (like it's blind and deaf), the rest is pointless.  Still I'd rather give them the 'lead test'...  maybe a GHz pulse weapon to clear it's ROM - that would be funny.

Ahem. Battelle.org has a nice Drone Defender which operates in the 400-meter range favored by drone makers. Its concentrated energy blasts affect GPS and ISM bands.

Quote from: quiller on March 09, 2017, 06:28:28 AM
Ahem. Battelle.org has a nice Drone Defender which operates in the 400-meter range favored by drone makers. Its concentrated energy blasts affect GPS and ISM bands.

Nice note Quiller ... to tag on ... many systems are useless without the ISM (unregulated and commonly used) band that operates; I would guess that it takes out the cellular bands too. If you lose ISM and cellular bands you can't talk or WiFi. Many either use cell phones or custom devices with ISM chips in them - the chips are technology where the commercial industry has made devices cheap and easy to get. Most systems use a lot of their usefulness in coordinating when they lose GPS. Think of a cell phone (most ubiquitous target) - if you lose the cellular bands then you can't talk. If you lose ISM, you can't text or email. If you lose GPS, you can't coordinate your position in any apps that benefit from it.

Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2017, 02:02:09 PM