Donnie gets back on script, just in time for his meeting with Putin. Who meddled in the election? It could be Russia, but “it could be someone else.” He then went on to compare it to the search for WMD in the lead-up to the Iraq war. “I remember when I was sitting back listening about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, how everybody was 100% certain that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Guess what? That led to one big mess. They were wrong and it led to a mess.”
Maybe when he meets his boss Putin will let him have an extra scoop of ice cream.
I don’t know, donnie two-scoops has a nice ring to it.
Maybe extra ketchup on this steak instead.
TRMS reports they have been given an explosive but they believe faked, “leaked NSA document” detailing specific collusion and naming names. She reports on it, as a warning to other news orgs, that someone is apparently shopping around pretty good fake top secret docs, presumably to discredit any news source which takes the bait, and to cloud the whole story more.(21 min video segment)
I work in network security. There is no such thing as a controlled environment thereof. Show me what you’re referring to, and I’ll show you that in every case involving servers and a network, there is change introduced on a pretty consistent basis.
Example: 100 Windows XP based voting machines get trotted out every so often to vote. That requires a not insignificant amount of people who touch and interact with said environment. Those voting machines have to be running, they have to be networked, there has to be a server taking the tally, there have to be routers that then shuffle that information to a centralized point, there have to be servers there as well, there are people who code the software, there are people who populate said software with changing ballot information, there are people just to manage those people.
It is not static. It is not fully controlled. There is always a way or means to alter that enclosed system.
Security starts from that very point, knowing that there is no perfect system. Defense is a means of attempting to minimize exposure to risk, but also preparing for the times when it fails.
Your point about people not caring though, spot on. Generally nobody cares as long as they think these systems work.
In the context I was replying, it was with regards to putting computers on an isolated network (i.e. not hooked up to the internet) and thus not vulnerable to “attacks” originating from the internet.
Naturally, someone could bring an USB stick and plug it into one of the servers on the “offline” network, or maybe a network engineer does something to route traffic elsewhere, but this is outside the scope of blaming “unpatched Windows XP” Machines for something. I.e. almost nothing is secure against a targeted attack from an adversary with an unlimited budget and will.
The recent Wecrypt apparently used a flaw in SMB1.0. There was a patch for it, but it could just as easily have been remedied with disabling SMB1.0. If you do not use a service, why keep it running/open - and having it accessible from the internet was madness even in the 90s.
So I can rephrase it, since to have a fully controlled system it must be turned off and pulverized. A hardened and monitored system then. One where you know all the traffic supposed to be going in and all the traffic supposed to be going out with access policies and whatnot.
Thinking patches is the end-all for “securing our internets” is a fallacy, and you’ll just be chasing the next 0 day patch. Sure, sometimes there’s a serious flaw, say in how the network traffic itself is handled (https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms09-048) but those are far apart. And I would assume that even then, with the correct IDS/IPS profiles applied you would not necessarily require a software update to handle it, as your network tech could just drop the attacking packet before it hits your system.
But, waiting for, and installing patches from Microsoft et. al. is a lot cheaper than having a 99.99% configured/managed/controlled IT platform, and you do not need someone with a lot of experience/education to click on Windows Update, so why bother paying for people you “do not need, until you need them.”
magnet
3625
I don’t believe they actually are networked. Each machine reports its own tally to the local officials, who write the numbers down and report them just as if they had hand-counted the votes.
Of course there are still people who have physical access to the machines, but they are not anonymous and have a chain of custody. Adding a few thousand votes by tampering with a voting machine has a pretty unappealing risk-reward.
The military and government are big on fully controlled systems, but they can still have human issues. As an example, Chelsea Manning. The intelligence and data released was on an enclosed system (mostly SIPRNet but some JWICS as I understand.) So to take that to a voting example, some manager somewhere goes in and takes cell phone pics of voting registrants and names and who they voted for and then releases them. “Look who Melania Trump really voted for!!!” There is always a risk that something might happen, so even if it isn’t actual vote tampering, things like that very well could, as you mentioned, change the perception of what people think of the entire system.
Here is an example:
[quote=“Wired”]The extent of vulnerability isn’t just hypothetical; late last summer, Virginia decertified thousands of insecure WinVote machines. As one security researcher described it, “anyone within a half mile could have modified every vote, undetected” without “any technical expertise.” The vendor had gone out of business years prior.
The WinVote systems are an extreme case, but not an isolated one. Other voting machine models have potentially vulnerable wireless components; Virginia’s just the only one where a test proved how bad the situation was.[/quote]
It’s pretty fucking scary to think about.
ShivaX
3628
Trump would make a great prosecutor.
“We have all this evidence you committed a crime.”
“Nah, wasn’t me.”
“Oh okay. Let him go boys, he said he didn’t do it.”
KevinC
3629
That is pretty disturbing.
CraigM
3631
Gee, that’s not threatening at all.
But not unexpected … It’s the sort of thing Roger Stone has been doing for decades.
What do you think are the chances the US intel agencies had a listening device in that meeting? 100% or 200% ?
I’m guessing closer to the 200%.
Chances that Trump knows about it? I’m guessing 0%.
Putin has to love Trump. He’s never had to work less to cuck anyone.
