Thread: Iran Flamed by Super Virus

Originally Posted by S2

.".

We're speculating on motives here without much clear understanding of background.

A WAB pasttime...

"...the US wants to force a dialogue within the international community...so that down the road treaties circumscribing its use can be entered..."

Possible though it seems premature to these unsophisticated eyes.

On the other hand, it can't be too soon for the global community to get serious about the threat of cyber-warfare or cyber-shenanigans. The range of issues is huge. For example, the Geneva Convention should probably ban interference by combatants in each others computerized medical procedures and tools. What other uses of cyber-warfare should be banned? When is it permissible? When is it not? When does cyber interference become an act of war? How will cyber treaties be monitored? It's a veritable can or worms.

I do think this leak is tied to ongoing negotiations with Iran. I'm unsure if it's intended as a very direct and public warning to Iran or, perhaps, others on the P-5+1 about our seriousness. Or both.

What benefits to the leaks do you see along those lines? One I see, is impressing Iran that we're serious that we won't tolerate their having nukes.

On another level, I wonder if this wasn't a shot across the bow of other global agents already engaged in such against the U.S.

That was one of my contentions. It is reasonable to suspect that every country with the tech capability is working on contingency plans for cyber warfare. That's only prudent. But how does a country do that without worming its way into a potential enemy's systems to see how they are configured and where they are vulnerable. Worming is the new spying...but it is also a way of placing time bombs in a system waiting patiently for the command to do their damage. It's almost as if Russia planted a few nukes in Washington just in case it gets in a war with the US and vice versa.

Finally, was there a domestic element to this message? If so, whom and why? Internal pressure to act against Iran? Presidential electoral politics? Both? Something else?

Good questions. If deliberate, will there be scapegoats?

In short, could there be a lot of messages to a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons? I don't know how many birds can be killed with one stone but it's got me thinking on those levels.

Yes. And we gotta think out of the box. (Hate that expression)

Flame and Stuxnet makers 'co-operated' on code
By Dave Lee
Technology reporter, BBC News

Teams responsible for the Flame and Stuxnet cyber-attacks worked together in the early stages of each threat's development, researchers have said.

BBC News - Flame and Stuxnet makers 'co-operated' on code

Way down in the article, experts are quoted saying this still doesn't prove the US or Israel was behind Flame.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Briefed about what ?

Once Stuxnet got into the open it became public knowledge.

There is no mention about flame in that NPR chat at all.

About that it is policy now to use computer warfare, that a team exists to do it, stuxnets development including dry runs, how it operated, how it was introduced, how it became compromised.
You want the enemies of your state to continue to guess, instead the WH has laid both their intent and method out on a plate for the Iranians and others to see.
Why not while they are at it have a chat about the problems in the development of the latest missiles or planes, how they were deployed and what successes and failures they have operationally?

Flame is of course part of the same ongoing process. I look forward to an in depth review next month and perhaps the WH might like to include some tidbits about the next one, along with some photos of Obama looking serious while the team briefs him.

An aside, who was that secret squirrel who was compromised when the WH released the photo of Obama, Clinton et al awaiting news on the OBL operation?

pari,

seems to me that you're speculating about the leak to fit into your predetermined view of obama.

we still don't know who did it, or why; we don't know about the timing, how much of it is actually true, etc.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

About that it is policy now to use computer warfare, that a team exists to do it, stuxnets development including dry runs, how it operated, how it was introduced, how it became compromised.

Just because Sanger says it does it mean its official policy ?

Where are the official declarations of such. See this attributed NYT article about cyber warfare.

Lots of suggestions are made...yet

The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them.

What are the sources..

This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day.

Lots of flexibility to weave an enticing story there isn't it. If its still highly classified why should you believe anything these people say as accurate. Just because they are former officials does not mean they can spill secrets. They all know that. Therefore i think whatever they are saying is harmless.

As i cannot as yet identify any red faced people that would be adversely affected.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

You want the enemies of your state to continue to guess, instead the WH has laid both their intent and method out on a plate for the Iranians and others to see.
Why not while they are at it have a chat about the problems in the development of the latest missiles or planes, how they were deployed and what successes and failures they have operationally?

I don't subscribe to the notion that these leaks abridge op-sec. Quite the contrary. They are purposeful, fanciful even. Will we ever know how effective Stuxnet really was. This is why i think its just more loose talk rather than loose lips.

Pro's that have security clearance know what to and what not to talk about. I find your idea that the President himself would spill the beans as far as national security is concerned to be very very far fetched.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Flame is of course part of the same ongoing process. I look forward to an in depth review next month and perhaps the WH might like to include some tidbits about the next one, along with some photos of Obama looking serious while the team briefs him.

And i would interpret that as pablum for the masses telling them what their govt is doing to solve problems.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

An aside, who was that secret squirrel who was compromised when the WH released the photo of Obama, Clinton et al awaiting news on the OBL operation?

Did not realise anybody was compromised as a result of that famous photo.

Your govt in action

Originally Posted by astralis

pari,

seems to me that you're speculating about the leak to fit into your predetermined view of obama.

we still don't know who did it, or why; we don't know about the timing, how much of it is actually true, etc.

Until this point I didn't have a predetermined view. I liked some stuff about him, disliked others. The sanguine nature of the administrations reaction to a major covert operation being outed in a fluff piece of what a fine commander in chief he is tells me all I need to know.
Meanwhile, the forensics continue apace.

Researchers Connect Flame to US-Israel Stuxnet Attack | Threat Level | Wired.com

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Just because Sanger says it does it mean its official policy ?

The subsequent statements and actions by the WH, Holder, McCain and Feinstein clearly state not that Sangers statements are incorrect, but simply how did the information get leaked. Can we move past the 'who knows if it's true' spiel now?

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Pro's that have security clearance know what to and what not to talk about. I find your idea that the President himself would spill the beans as far as national security is concerned to be very very far fetched.

Pro's do indeed generally know how to keep their mouth shut, which by your own statement almost certainly places it in the political arena. Very few of the Obama administration would know the level of detail necessary for Sanger's article: will we see another Scooter Libby?

Originally Posted by Double Edge

And i would interpret that as pablum for the masses telling them what their govt is doing to solve problems.

Interpret it however you like.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Did not realise anybody was compromised as a result of that famous photo.

EDIT: Nope got it wrong with first photo.

This chap

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Your govt in action

Not my govt. thank Christ, I have enough problems with the one I've got.

There are rumors Maytag is desperately seeking a copy that won't self-destroy.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

The subsequent statements and actions by the WH, Holder, McCain and Feinstein clearly state not that Sangers statements are incorrect, but simply how did the information get leaked.

From S2's CNN blog post.

Feinstein remarks were to do with foiling a yemeni plot. This may have substance. But..

such briefings are an "obligation" for the administration once a story like the Yemen plot is publicized, insisted National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

McCain says the cyber leaks were to bolster the president's image. Which i agree with. McCain wants an investigation

Holder announced that such an investigation has begun. To go specifically into..

the highly publicized disclosures of material involving previously secret cyber attacks on Iran, a so-called terrorist "kill list" and an extensive drone operation.

No idea when it will conclude. Let's see what they turn up.

Cannot find a reference to what the WH said or actions they have taken Just this..

In the latest case, the White House denied it was orchestrating the leak. Asked Friday if the Times' story detailing the cyberattack on Iran was an "authorized leak," White House spokesman Josh Earnest disagreed "in the strongest possible terms."

"That information is classified for a reason. Publicizing it would pose a threat to our national security," Earnest told reporters.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Can we move past the 'who knows if it's true' spiel now?

All i'm saying is i think the success of these cyber warfare efforts has been grossly exaggerated. The sole aim of their publication is to make the president look good.

Did not say whether it was true or not. There is a worm out there so it exists.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Pro's do indeed generally know how to keep their mouth shut, which by your own statement almost certainly places it in the political arena. Very few of the Obama administration would know the level of detail necessary for Sanger's article: will we see another Scooter Libby?

Trying to find where that phrase comes from and its the CNN blog post

"This is unbelievable ... absolutely stunning," a former senior intelligence official said about the level of detail contained in the cyberattack story.

The official noted that the article cited participants in sensitive White House meetings who then told the reporter about top secret discussions. The article "talks about President Obama giving direction for a cyberweapons attack during a time of peace against a United Nations member state."

That Sanger can write a compelling account is without doubt. I bet he can spin a story out of one sentence. Evidently he had enough to go and write a book.

So when are Sanger & the NYT going to get hauled up ?

This is what usually happens when leaks take place that should not be revealed.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

EDIT: Nope got it wrong with first photo.

This chap

Never saw that photo, only the previous one you posted.

No clue who the guy is, but guess he is someone that isn't to be photographed. A slip up. Which is quite different to what we are talking about otherwise.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Not my govt. thank Christ, I have enough problems with the one I've got.

heh don't we all, i meant to the Americans & Israelis.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Unless you state that their mere survival is indication of AQ's effectiveness after Tora Bora, the evidence again does not support your view that Obama was more effective than Bush. Bush destroyed AQ's operational capabilities beyond repair and kept it that way. In those 7 years, AQ did not mount one single successful campaign, not even in target rich Iraq.

And yet he dropped the ball on Afghanistan and the Taliban when he diverted crucial resources to Iraq when he had the intelligence or shall I say lack of intelligence (his own CIA chief was screaming, what intel??) that Iraq had WMDs. He could have finished off Taliban and prevented Pakistan from harboring Taliban. Now instead, we are stuck in Afghanistan for a very long time and cannot get rid of the Taliban. He allowed himself to get derailed by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Obama hasn't let anybody derail him. That is a crucial difference.

"He could have finished off Taliban and prevented Pakistan from harboring Taliban..."

The taliban WERE finished off in Afghanistan. Their presence was essentially non-existent in Afghanistan between 2002-2004. The only option against Pakistan which existed was to immediately supply our effort in Afghanistan solely through the northern route beginning in 2002.

Doing so would have rendered moot any Pakistani leverage against ISAF/NATO and left them vulnerable to sanctions. Whether an immediately sanctioned Pakistan might have proven sufficiently vulnerable to promptly initiate attacks against Afghan taliban sanctuaries is speculative...but very, very unlikely.

That option was also available to Obama upon assuming office in 2009. Moreover, he had far more compelling evidence amassed against Pakistani intransigence than had Bush. Yet Obama chose otherwise.

War with Pakistan wasn't an option then or now for too many obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

And yet he dropped the ball on Afghanistan and the Taliban when he diverted crucial resources to Iraq when he had the intelligence or shall I say lack of intelligence (his own CIA chief was screaming, what intel??) that Iraq had WMDs.

Hitesh, the history has been well established. WMDs were not the reason why Saddam was taken out. Taking out Saddam was not a strategic mistake.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

He could have finished off Taliban and prevented Pakistan from harboring Taliban. Now instead, we are stuck in Afghanistan for a very long time and cannot get rid of the Taliban.

There was no way to prevent Pakistan from turning a blind eye and without active Pakistani involvement, the best that could have been hoped for was a low level insurgency. Given how well the Pakistanis have handled their own anti-Islamabad insurgencies, it would be too much to hoped for for a destroyed Taliban.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

He allowed himself to get derailed by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Obama hasn't let anybody derail him. That is a crucial difference.

Libya.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Well, it's seeming that it's deliberate Obama policy to release OPSEC details even as the operations occur. This level of confidence in accuracy and detail can only come from Sanger being briefed. I'm no longer in two minds, Obama no longer has the best interests of the US in mind, if he ever had.

David Sanger: 'Obama's Secret Wars' Against America's Threats : NPR
David Sanger: 'Obama's Secret Wars' Against America's Threats : NPR

As a side note when listening to that NPR chat, they briefly talk about McChrystal's COIN plan for Afghanistan.

The plan was to take ten years and cost a trillion. The most expensive item in the defense budget. That is why Obama nixed it and we know the rest.

Chances of a prosecution are slim

For U.S. Inquiries on Leaks, a Difficult Road to Prosecution | NYT | Jun 9 2012

For U.S. Inquiries on Leaks, a Difficult Road to Prosecution
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
June 9, 2012

WASHINGTON — Anger over leaks of government secrets and calls for prosecution have once again engulfed the nation’s capital. Under bipartisan pressure for a crackdown, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday announced the appointment of two top prosecutors to lead investigations into recent disclosures.

But the prospects for those efforts are murky. Historically, the vast majority of leak-related investigations have turned up nothing conclusive, and several of the nine that have been prosecuted — six already under the Obama administration, and just three more under all previous presidents — collapsed.

“These cases are very difficult to pursue,” said Kenneth L. Wainstein, a former assistant attorney general for national security under President George W. Bush.

Still, the Obama administration is facing intense pressure to identify and make examples of any officials who helped bring to light a series of recent disclosures — including new information about the Obama administration’s drone strikes, a joint effort by the United States and Israel to damage Iranian nuclear equipment with a computer virus, and the foiling of a terrorist plot with help from a double agent. (The reports appeared in several recent books and articles, including some by The New York Times.)

Many people are surprised to learn that there is no law against disclosing classified information, in and of itself. The classification system was established for the executive branch by presidential order, not by statute, to control access to information and how it must be handled. While officials who break those rules may be admonished or fired, the system covers far more information than it is a crime to leak.

Instead, leak prosecutions rely on a 1917 espionage statute whose principal provision makes it a crime to disclose, to persons not authorized to receive it, national defense information with knowledge that its dissemination could harm the United States or help a foreign power.

To win such a case at trial, prosecutors have to prove to a jury that the leaked information met that standard, including showing why its disclosure was harmful. To date, there has been only one successful trial of an accused leaker — an intelligence analyst who gave satellite pictures of a Soviet shipbuilding facility to Jane’s Defense Weekly in 1984.

Several defendants in other leak cases pleaded guilty, avoiding a fight over whether the information they had passed on qualified. Other cases were dismissed.

Several lawmakers last week proposed updating and strengthening secrecy laws, reviving proposals that have periodically been made after other disclosures. Most of those episodes faded away without action, but in 2000 Congress passed a bill that would have made the disclosure of any classified information a felony. President Bill Clinton vetoed it.

In 2002, President George W. Bush’s attorney general, John Ashcroft, told Congress that no new laws were necessary.

Identifying a leaker is also rarely easy, since there are often dozens or hundreds of officials who had access to the information. But it is easier today than in earlier eras to build a circumstantial case that a particular official talked to a reporter because modern communications technology — like e-mail — leaves trails.

Several of the recent disclosures, however, resulted from deeply reported projects. Such articles tend to have diffuse sourcing, making it hard to isolate who first disclosed the essence of what later becomes an article.

On those rare occasions when there is an identifiable leaker, the government must still decide whether prosecuting would mean divulging too many secrets to be worth it — starting, usually, with having to confirm in public that a particular leak was accurate. Defendants who choose to fight often rely on a so-called graymail defense. This involves making the disclosure of further classified information a centerpiece of their right to a fair trial by pushing for even more revelations, such as identifying other people at the agency who had access to the same knowledge.

While a federal law, the Classified Information Procedures Act, is intended to allow such trials to go forward without revealing secrets, in practice judges have not always agreed with the government that certain information can be withheld from a public trial. If it turns out that prosecutors miscalculated in predicting how a judge would rule on such evidentiary issues, the agency that had urged the Justice Department to bring the case might balk at letting it continue.

That said, there are possible situations in which it may be easier for prosecutors in the current cases to succeed — in particular, if they can locate e-mails in which a particular official disclosed a clearly sensitive secret.

Still, wide-ranging leak investigations can also have unintended consequences — as when Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor investigating the disclosure during the Bush administration of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame Wilson, ended up charging Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., with lying to the F.B.I. under questioning.

In that investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald had been made a special counsel and delegated all the powers of the attorney general. Some Republicans, accusing the Obama administration of leaking information to make President Obama look tough, have called for special counsels to lead the new investigations, too.

Mr. Obama on Friday denied that his White House had sanctioned any leaking. And Mr. Holder rejected the need for a special counsel, instead appointing two United States attorneys without any special independence.

That could make a difference if the investigators want to subpoena reporters or their records, because Mr. Holder himself would have to sign off on such a request. Mr. Fitzgerald, by contrast, was able to subpoena a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, on his own. (She ended up spending 85 days in jail after initially refusing to testify.)

Because leak investigations raise Constitutional issues about press freedoms, Justice Department regulations say that prosecutors may not subpoena reporters’ testimony or communications records unless they have exhausted all other means of getting the information they are seeking. Special counsels must obey such restrictions, too — and inevitable litigation over any subpoenas to the press mean courts will oversee their decisions.

“These cases are supposed to be difficult,” said Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy with the Federation of American Scientists. “Investigators will have to balance several competing interests — including punishment of leaks, preservation of remaining secrets, and freedom of the press. That is a challenging assignment and it explains why there have been relatively few prosecutions over the years.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 12, 2012

An earlier version of this article misidentified a federal law relating to the prosecution of individuals charged with the unauthorized disclosure of classified government information. It is the Classified Information Procedures Act, not the Classified Information Protection Act.