Tag Archives: NSA

Ex-NSA Contractor Stole 50 TB of Classified Data; Includes Top-Secret Hacking Tools

nsa

Almost two months ago, the FBI quietly arrested NSA contractor Harold Thomas Martin III for stealing an enormous number of top secret documents from the intelligence agency.

Now, according to a court document filed Thursday, the FBI seized at least 50 terabytes of data from 51-year-old Martin that he siphoned from government computers over two decades.

The stolen data that are at least 500 million pages of government records includes top-secret information about “national defense.” If all data stolen by Martin found indeed classified, it would be the largest NSA heist, far bigger than Edward Snowden leaks.

According to the new filing, Martin also took “six full bankers’ boxes” worth of documents, many of which were marked “Secret” and “Top Secret.” The stolen data also include the personal information of government employees. The stolen documents date from between 1996 through 2016.

“The document appears to have been printed by the Defendant from an official government account,” the court documents read. “On the back of the document are handwritten notes describing the NSA’s classified computer infrastructure and detailed descriptions of classified technical operations.”

Former NSA Insider Could Be Behind The Shadow Brokers

It’s not clear exactly what Martin allegedly stole, but The New York Times reported Wednesday that the stolen documents also included the NSA’s top secret hacking tools posted online by a supposed hacking group, calling itself Shadow Brokers, earlier this year.

Earlier this summer, Shadow Brokers claimed to have infiltrated NSA servers and stolen enormous amounts of data, including working exploits and hacking tools.

The NY Times report suggests that the FBI has found forensic evidence that the hacking tools and cyber-weapons posted online by the alleged hacking group had actually been on a contractor’s machine.

NSA Contractor to Face Espionage Charges

Martin, a former Booz Allen Hamilton staffer like NSA whistleblower Snowden, should remain locked up and the government also plans to charge him with violations of the Espionage Act, Prosecutors said.

If convicted, one can face the death penalty.

Martin has “obtained advanced educational degrees” and has also “taken extensive government training courses on computer security,” including in the areas of encryption as well as secure communications.

A former US Navy veteran, Martin allegedly used a sophisticated software that “runs without being installed on a computer system and provides anonymous Internet access, leaving no digital footprint on the Machine.”

It’s believed that Martin was using TAILS operating system or another USB-bootable operating system in conjunction with Tor or a VPN that would not leave any forensic evidence of his computer activities.

Martin’s motives are still unclear, but among the seized documents, investigators uncovered a letter sent to Martin’s colleagues in 2007, in which he criticized the information security practices of government and refers to those same co-workers as “clowns.”

The letter reads: “I will leave you with this: if you do not get obnoxious, obvious, and detrimental to my future, then I will not bring you; into the light, as it were. If you do, well, remember that you did it to yourselves.”

Martin is due to appear before US Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner for his detention hearing on Friday in Baltimore.

 

NSA’s Hacking Group Hacked! Bunch of Private Hacking Tools Leaked Online

It seems like the NSA has been HACKED!

NSA_Hacked

An unknown hacker or a group of hackers just claimed to have hacked into the “Equation Group” — a cyber-attack group allegedly associated with the United States intelligence organization NSA — and dumped a bunch of its hacking tools (malware, private exploits, and hacking tools) online.

I know, it is really hard to believe, but some cybersecurity experts who have been examining the leak data, exploits and hacking tools, believe it to be legitimate.

Hacker Demands $568 Million in Bitcoin to Leak All Tools and Data
Not just this, the hackers, calling themselves “The Shadow Brokers,” are also asking for 1 Million Bitcoins (around $568 Million) in an auction to release the ‘best’ cyber weapons and more files.

Widely believed to be part of the NSA, Equation Group was described as “a threat actor that surpasses anything known in terms of complexity and sophistication of techniques, and that has been active for almost two decades,” according to a report published by security firm Kaspersky in 2015.

Equation Group was also linked to the previous infamous Regin and Stuxnet attacks, allegedly the United States sponsored hacks, though the link was never absolutely proven.

Two days back, The Shadow Brokers released some files, which it claimed came from the Equation Group, on Github (deleted) and Tumblr.

Exploits for American & Chinese Firewalls Leaked:

The files mostly contained installation scripts, configurations for command-and-control (C&C) servers, and exploits allegedly designed to target routers and firewalls from American manufacturers including, Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet.

According to the leaked files, Chinese company ‘Topsec‘ was also an Equation Group target.

The leak mentioned names of some of the hacking tools that correlate with names used in the documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, like “BANANAGLEE” and “EPICBANANA.”

“We follow Equation Group traffic,” says the Shadow Broker. “We find Equation Group source range. We hack Equation Group. We find many many Equation Group cyber weapons. You see pictures. We give you some Equation Group files free, you see. This is good proof no? You enjoy!!! You break many things. You find many intrusions. You write many words. But not all, we are auction the best files.”

It is yet not confirmed whether the leaked documents are legitimate or not, but some security experts agree that it likely is.

I haven’t tested the exploits, but they definitely look like legitimate exploits,” Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cyber security firm Comae Technologies, told the Daily Dot.

While some are saying that the leak could be a very well-researched hoax, and the Bitcoin auction could be nothing but a distraction in an attempt to gain media attention.

“If this is a hoax, the perpetrators put a huge amount of effort in,” security researcher The Grugq said “The proof files look pretty legit, and they are exactly the sorts of exploits you would expect a group that targets communications infrastructure to deploy and use.”

However, if NSA has successfully been hacked, the hack would be a highly critical cyber security incident.
Lets watch and see what the response to this allegation is from the NSA.

 

 

 

Napolitano: FBI Plan to Access Browser History “Major Step Towards Police State

It never gets better no matter who is in the White House, he said

DOJ

The Obama administration is pushing Congress to amend existing surveillance laws to give the FBI unquestionable authority to access a person’s browser history without a warrant, a move Judge Andrew Napolitano slammed as “a major step towards a police state.”

Under existing law, the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) are required to obtain a surveillance warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) before accessing an individual’s electronic records.

However, the FBI is able to bypass the court system and access information relating to an individual’s phone records through the use of a “National Security Letter.”

“NSLs are shadowy administrative subpoenas for information issued by the FBI, whose authority to use them was bolstered by the Patriot Act in 2001,” as reported by US News and World Report. “The requests often are accompanied by a gag order disallowing the company from which information is sought from discussing it.”

FBI Director James B. Comey has requested Congress pass legislation to amend a “typo” in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that, he claims, has allowed some tech companies to refuse to provide data that Congress originally intended them to hand over to the FBI.

The new legislation, if passed, would allow the FBI to access an individual’s browser history by using a National Security Letter, rather than a warrant from the FISA Court. A National Security Letter only requires approval from the special agent in charge of a FBI Field Office.

Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee in February, Comey claimed the inability to obtain electronic information without a NSL affects the FBI’s work, “in a very, very big and practical way.” The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2017, with the NSL amendment attached, will now head to the full Senate for a vote.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was the sole member of the Intelligence Committee in opposition to the amendment.

“This bill takes a hatchet to important protections for Americans’ liberty,” he said. “This bill would mean more government surveillance of Americans, less due process, and less independent oversight of US intelligence agencies.”

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn is a co-sponsor of a similar amendment that is set to be voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday; He has argued a “scrivener’s error” in the law is “needlessly hamstringing our counterintelligence and counterterrorism efforts.”

A coalition of tech firms and privacy advocates submitted a letter to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing concern over the amendment and the threat it poses to civil liberties.

“This expansion of the NSL statute has been characterized by some government officials as merely fixing a ‘typo’ in the law,” they wrote. In reality, however, it would dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users’ online activities without court oversight.”

Appearing with Shepard Smith on Fox News, Judge Andrew Napolitano expressed anger over the amendment and warned the American people to wake up to the ongoing erosion of their civil liberties.

“It gets worse, it never gets better no matter who is in the White House, no matter which party controls the Congress,” he said. “The American people should wake up….This is a major step towards a police state.”

“It’s done in the name of, it’s always done in the name of keeping us safe. Who or what will keep our liberties safe?”

 

 

 

Former NSA Chief Michael Hayden Sides With Apple, Though Admits ‘No Encryption Is Unbreakable’

iphone-6-plus-event-2014-billboard-650
An attendee demonstrates the new Apple Inc. iPhone 6 Plus after a product announcement at Flint Center in Cupertino, California, U.S., on Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014. Apple Inc. unveiled redesigned iPhones with bigger screens, overhauling its top-selling product in an event that gives the clearest sign yet of the company’s product direction under Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook.
David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Tim Cook‘s opinion that Apple should not develop a way to hack into the encrypted phone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters has earned an endorsement from an unlikely source, though it comes with a big “but.” Michael Hayden, the former NSA director and CIA chief — so, a bonafide spy guy, told the Wall Street Journal that America is “more secure with unbreakable end-to-end encryption,” calling it a “slam dunk” if you view it in the scope of the “broad health” of the United States.

Hayden said FBI director James Comey‘s demand for Apple to give them a tool to break into Syed Farook’s iPhone is “based on the belief that he remains the main body, and that you should accommodate your movements to the movements of him, which is the main body. I’m telling you, with regards to the cyber domain, he’s not — you are.”

Now for that “but,” which will surely disappoint all the (temporarily pleased) civil libertarians out there. Hayden said that following a setback in the mid-nineties, when the NSA failed to convince manufacturers to adopt a cryptographic device called the Clipper chip, “we then began the greatest 15 years in electronic surveillance.” The controversial chipset was an encryption device that had a built-in backdoor in case the government needed to take a lookie-loo. But, as Hayden notes, “we figured out ways to get around the quote-unquote unbreakable encryption. Number one, no encryption is unbreakable. It just takes more computing power. Number two, the way we worked around encryption is bulk collection and metadata.”

Watch the conversation:

Since 2014, Apple’s iPhones have had built-in encryption that makes it so the contents of a device can only be accessed via a phone’s passcode. The FBI’s order stipulates that Apple provide software to work only on the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. Cook said in an open letter that the U.S. government order would undermine encryption and potentially create a “master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks” on private devices.

Cook wrote that “in the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession… The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a back door. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

On Wednesday, Cook’s position received support from a high-profile colleague in tech.

“Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy,” wrote Google CEO Sundar Pichai in a series of Twitter posts. “We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism. We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders. But that’s wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent. Looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue.”

 

Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before

48527578.cached

Apple CEO Tim Cook declared on Wednesday that his company wouldn’t comply with a government search warrant to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers, a significant escalation in a long-running debate between technology companies and the government over access to people’s electronically-stored private information.

But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)

In other words, Apple’s stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is. In fact, it may have as much to do with public relations as it does with warding off what Cook called “an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.”

For its part, the government’s public position isn’t clear cut, either. U.S. officials insist that they cannot get past a security feature on the shooter’s iPhone that locks out anyone who doesn’t know its unique password—which even Apple doesn’t have. But in that New York case, a government attorney acknowledged that one U.S. law enforcement agency has already developed the technology to crack at least some iPhones, without the assistance from Apple that officials are demanding now.

The facts in the New York case, which involve a self-confessed methamphetamine dealer and not a notorious terrorist, tend to undermine some of the core claims being made by both Apple and the government in a dispute with profound implications for privacy and criminal investigations beyond the San Bernardino case.

In New York, as in California, Apple is refusing to bypass the passcode feature now found on many iPhones.

But in a legal brief, Apple acknowledged that the phone in the meth case was running version 7 of the iPhone operating system, which means the company can access it. “For these devices, Apple has the technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data from a passcode locked iOS device,” the company said in a court brief.

Whether the extraction would be successful depended on whether the phone was “in good working order,” Apple said, noting that the company hadn’t inspected the phone yet. But as a general matter, yes, Apple could crack the iPhone for the government. And, two technical experts told The Daily Beast, the company could do so with the phone used by deceased San Bernardino shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook, a model 5C. It was running version 9 of the operating system.

Still, Apple argued in the New York case, it shouldn’t have to, because “forcing Apple to extract data… absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand,” the company said, putting forth an argument that didn’t explain why it was willing to comply with court orders in other cases.

“This reputational harm could have a longer term economic impact beyond the mere cost of performing the single extraction at issue,” Apple said.

Apple’s argument in New York struck one former NSA lawyer as a telling admission: that its business reputation is now an essential factor in deciding whether to hand over customer information.

“I think Apple did itself a huge disservice,” Susan Hennessey, who was an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel at the NSA, told The Daily Beast. The company acknowledged that it had the technical capacity to unlock the phone, but “objected anyway on reputational grounds,” Hennessey said. Its arguments were at odds with each other, especially in light of Apple’s previous compliance with so many court orders.

It wasn’t until after the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that Apple began to position itself so forcefully as a guardian of privacy protection in the face of a vast government surveillance apparatus. Perhaps Apple was taken aback by the scale of NSA spying that Snowden revealed. Or perhaps it was embarassed by its own role in it. The company, since 2012, had been providing its customers’ information to the FBI and the NSA via the PRISM program, which operated pursuant to court orders.

Apple has also argued, then and now, that the government is overstepping the authority of the All Writs Act, an 18th-century statute that it claims forces Apple to conduct court-ordered iPhone searches. That’s where the “clear legal authority” question comes into play.

But that, too, is a subjective question which will have to be decided by higher courts. For now, Apple is resisting the government on multiple grounds, and putting its reputation as a bastion of consumer protection front and center in the fight.

None of this has stopped the government from trying to crack the iPhone, a fact that emerged unexpectedly in the New York case. In a brief exchange with attorneys during a hearing in October, Judge James Orenstein said he’d found testimony in another case that the Homeland Security Department “is in possession of technology that would allow its forensic technicians to override the pass codes security feature on the subject iPhone and obtain the data contained therein.”

That revelation, which went unreported in the press at the time, seemed to undercut the government’s central argument that it needed Apple to unlock a protected iPhone.

“Even if [Homeland Security] agents did not have the defendant’s pass code, they would nevertheless have been able to obtain the records stored in the subject iPhone using specialized software,” the judge said. “Once the device is unlocked, all records in it can be accessed and copied.”

A government attorney affirmed that he was aware of the tool. However, it applied only to one update of version 8 of the iPhone operating system—specifically, 8.1.2. The government couldn’t unlock all iPhones, but just phones with that software running.

Still, it made the judge question whether other government agencies weren’t also trying to break the iPhone’s supposedly unbreakable protections. And if so, why should he order the company to help?

There was, the judge told the government lawyer, “the possibility that on the intel side, the government has this capability. I would be surprised if you would say it in open court one way or the other.”

Orenstein was referring to the intelligence agencies, such as the NSA, which develop tools and techniques to hack popular operating systems, and have been particularly interested for years in trying to get into Apple products, according to documents leaked by Snowden.

There was no further explanation of how Homeland Security developed the tool, and whether it was widely used. A department spokesperson declined to comment “on specific law enforcement techniques.” But the case had nevertheless demonstrated that, at least in some cases, the government can, and has, managed to get around the very wall that it now claims impedes lawful criminal investigations.

The showdown between Apple and the FBI will almost certainly not be settled soon. The company is expected to file new legal briefs within days. And the question of whether the All Writs Act applies in such cases is destined for an appeals court decision, legal experts have said.

But for the moment, it appears that the only thing certainly standing in the way of Apple complying with the government is its decision not to. And for its part, the government must be presumed to be searching for new ways to get the information it wants.

Technically, Apple probably can find a way to extract the information that the government wants from the San Bernardino shooter’s phone, Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Daily Beast.

“The question is, does the law give the government the ability to force Apple to create new code?” he said. “Engineers have to sit down and create something that doesn’t exist” in order to meet the government’s demands. Soghoian noted that this would only be possible in the San Bernardino case because the shooter was using an iPhone model 5C, and that newer hardware versions would be much harder for Apple to bypass.

But even that’s in dispute, according to another expert’s analysis. Dan Guido, a self-described hacker and CEO of the cybersecurity company Trail of Bits, said that Apple can, in fact, eliminate the protections that keep law enforcement authorities from trying to break into the iPhone with a so-called brute force attack, using a computer to make millions of password guesses in a short period of time. New iPhones have a feature that stops users from making repeated incorrect guesses and can trigger a kind of self-destruct mechanism, erasing all the phone’s contents, after too many failed attempts.

In a detailed blog post, Guido described how Apple could work around its own protections and effectively disarm the security protections. It wouldn’t be trivial. But it’s feasible, he said, even for the newest versions of the iPhone, which, unlike the ones in the New York and San Bernardino cases, Apple swears it cannot crack.

“The burden placed on Apple will be greater… but it will not be impossible,” Guido told The Daily Beast.

 

Edward Snowden defends Apple in fight against FBI

Edward Snowden — the ex-NSA contractor who started this whole privacy debate — has joined the ranks of Apple defenders.
Snowden

On Tuesday, a federal magistrate-judge ruled that Apple must help the FBI break into the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. The FBI was unable to figure out the shooter’s passcode, which is the only way to get inside his iPhone.

Apple CEO Tim Cook is furious, saying that the U.S. government is trying to undermine the security of its flagship product.

“The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers,” Cook said.

Apple plans to fight the decision, aided by the ACLU.

On Wednesday, the divide was clear: politicians versus engineers.

“The FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around,” Snowden said Wednesday morning on Twitter.

Late Wednesday, Silicon Valley’s powerful tech industry trade group came out in support of Apple too.

“We worry about the broader implications … of requiring technology companies to cooperate with governments to disable security features, or introduce security vulnerabilities,” said the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents Dell, Facebook (FB, Tech30), Google, Hewlett Packard (HPE, Tech30), IBM (IBM, Tech30), Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30), Nokia (NOK) and others.

For years, the FBI has demanded special access into smartphones. Tech companies have refused, instead increasing the security of their customers’ data.

Cryptographers, the scholars who build security into technology, have unanimously warned that special access is a dangerous idea. To them, this isn’t about security competing with privacy. It’s just about security.

The San Bernardino shooter, Syed Farook, used an iPhone 5C. The FBI has been trying to guess his passcode to unlock it. If they guess wrong 10 times, Farook’s iPhone will permanently erase all the data stored inside.

Apple doesn’t hold the keys to his device. But the FBI wants Apple to create a special version of its iOS software that will get loaded onto the phone, circumvent Apple’s security features and let agents hack it.

Dan Guido, who runs the cybersecurity firm Trail of Bits, explained in a blog post Wednesday that this hack is possible. He said it would work on any iPhone 5C or older model, putting them “at risk when they’re confiscated by law enforcement around the world.”

Last year, the world’s top cryptographers issued a joint paper saying this is a bad idea. CNNMoney asked them if this particular San Bernardino case changes their mind. All seven who responded said no.

Matthew Green, who teaches cryptography and computer security at Johns Hopkins University, fears it’s a slippery slope. If Apple complies with the government this time, it’ll be forced to in the future.

“I haven’t seen any guiding principle that would prevent this from getting out of hand. It could easily result in every American becoming less secure,” he said.

Columbia University computer science professor Steven M. Bellovin said that if Apple doesn’t resist the FBI, it’ll soon face the same pressure from authoritarian and repressive governments like China.

“This makes it much easier for others — other police departments, other governments — to demand the same thing,” he said.

Bruce Schneier, one of the world’s top cryptographers, warned that criminals could also use this kind of special access to break into people’s phones to steal messages, photographs and other personal information. If Apple creates a weaker version of its operating system, others will get their hands on it.

Most tech industry executives — who normally tout privacy — remained silent Wednesday. WhatsApp cofounder Jan Koum stood out with this message on Facebook: “We must not allow this dangerous precedent to be set.”

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, one of the few politicians to rise to Apple’s defense, said “no company should be forced to deliberately weaken its products.”

(Read more: Manhattan DA says Apple makes terrorism cases ‘go cold’)

Other politicians pushed back on that idea Wednesday. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the FBI is “not asking Apple to redesign its product or create a new backdoor to one of their products. They’re simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device.”

Leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump weighed in too, saying, “we have to open it up.” Marco Rubio, who is also vying for the Republican presidential nomination, said Apple should give up its fight and be “a good corporate citizen.”

But even those who support the FBI’s demands say it’s a point of no return. Cyrus Walker teaches at the government-funded Cyber Defense Analysis Center, where he trains federal agents and police how to hack smartphones in criminal cases.

“If Apple demonstrates the ability to get around its own security countermeasures, that bell is rung and can’t be un-rung,” said Walker.