Russia Carried Out a 'Stunning' Breach of FBI Communications System, Escalating the Spy Game on US Soil (yahoo.com) 104
Zach Dorfman, Jenna McLaughlin, and Sean D. Naylor, reporting for Yahoo News: On Dec. 29, 2016, the Obama administration announced that it was giving nearly three dozen Russian diplomats just 72 hours to leave the United States and was seizing two rural East Coast estates owned by the Russian government. As the Russians burned papers and scrambled to pack their bags, the Kremlin protested the treatment of its diplomats, and denied that those compounds -- sometimes known as the "dachas" -- were anything more than vacation spots for their personnel. The Obama administration's public rationale for the expulsions and closures -- the harshest U.S. diplomatic reprisals taken against Russia in several decades -- was to retaliate for Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. But there was another critical, and secret, reason why those locations and diplomats were targeted.
Both compounds, and at least some of the expelled diplomats, played key roles in a brazen Russian counterintelligence operation that stretched from the Bay Area to the heart of the nation's capital , according to former U.S. officials. The operation, which targeted FBI communications, hampered the bureau's ability to track Russian spies on U.S. soil at a time of increasing tension with Moscow, forced the FBI and CIA to cease contact with some of their Russian assets, and prompted tighter security procedures at key U.S. national security facilities in the Washington area and elsewhere, according to former U.S. officials. It even raised concerns among some U.S. officials about a Russian mole within the U.S. intelligence community. "It was a very broad effort to try and penetrate our most sensitive operations," said a former senior CIA official.
American officials discovered that the Russians had dramatically improved their ability to decrypt certain types of secure communications and had successfully tracked devices used by elite FBI surveillance teams. Officials also feared that the Russians may have devised other ways to monitor U.S. intelligence communications, including hacking into computers not connected to the internet. Senior FBI and CIA officials briefed congressional leaders on these issues as part of a wide-ranging examination on Capitol Hill of U.S. counterintelligence vulnerabilities.
Both compounds, and at least some of the expelled diplomats, played key roles in a brazen Russian counterintelligence operation that stretched from the Bay Area to the heart of the nation's capital , according to former U.S. officials. The operation, which targeted FBI communications, hampered the bureau's ability to track Russian spies on U.S. soil at a time of increasing tension with Moscow, forced the FBI and CIA to cease contact with some of their Russian assets, and prompted tighter security procedures at key U.S. national security facilities in the Washington area and elsewhere, according to former U.S. officials. It even raised concerns among some U.S. officials about a Russian mole within the U.S. intelligence community. "It was a very broad effort to try and penetrate our most sensitive operations," said a former senior CIA official.
American officials discovered that the Russians had dramatically improved their ability to decrypt certain types of secure communications and had successfully tracked devices used by elite FBI surveillance teams. Officials also feared that the Russians may have devised other ways to monitor U.S. intelligence communications, including hacking into computers not connected to the internet. Senior FBI and CIA officials briefed congressional leaders on these issues as part of a wide-ranging examination on Capitol Hill of U.S. counterintelligence vulnerabilities.
Don't bother (Score:1)
Clicking the story. The summary is the entire thing.
Re: Don't bother (Score:1)
No it isnâ(TM)t, the story goes on for pages...
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Must have been the dozen ad and script blockers I use to make the internet readable. Earlier there was no button under the red mansion.
Re: (Score:2)
kenh is correct. The story is quite long.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Hoover regularly took civil rights cases away from the local police, and scuttled them. He was convinced that the civil rights movement was run by Communists and Soviet agents, and he was determined to destroy them - no matter what it took.
That's why his FBI framed black civil rights leaders for crimes, or blackmailed them, or allowed the KKK and other white-supremacist organizations to attack them. He even had an effort devoted to attempting to destroy Martin Luther King Jr!
And that's besides his absolut
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The "mole" was able to work for the FBI and read from that computer as part of their job?
Some kind of background investigation as part of a "security clearance" might help with that...
Before granting access to the "most sensitive operations" and "computers".
Re "decrypt certain types of secure communications"
Who is making the "secure communications" and doing the crypto math for the US gov?
If the Russians are liste
So by ... Russians ... ;) (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not on US soil.
Re: (Score:1)
>They should be disbanded and replaced by competent investigators.
Not sure where you are going to find a large number of patriotic, principled investigators these days. And if they disband the FBI, there would suddenly be a pool of cheap investigators just lying around Wash. D.C., who would immediately apply for work at whatever bureau replaced the FBI. I think we're screwed.
Re:Completely one-sided, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not about the spying, this is about interfering with a law enforcement organization. The spying is expected. Interfering with the operations of the FBI constitutes an actual attack.
Both are understandable, but they are not the same thing, and they are not treated the same way.
Re: Completely one-sided, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of this as criminals running around with police scanners, and the cops aren't encrypting their transmissions. The Russians listened in on agents talking over secure devices - that is spying as far as most people are concerned. Technically, the Russians didn't interfere with FBI investigations, instead they monitored communications between agents.
Are you hoping to claim there is not a monitoring station inside Russia listening to their communications? Seriously? I kinda suspect our embassy has a listening post, how is that different?
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the Russians didn't interfere with FBI investigations, instead they monitored communications between agents.
Perhaps you didn't read the story? The Russians weren't listening out of idle curiosity.
Re: (Score:2)
The good spying for cash outside gov?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Completely one-sided, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I’m trying to figure out what your point is. The Russians got caught spying on the US - rather successfully - and this series of moves was taken to hopefully shut it down. If the situation were reversed, the Russians would’ve done the same thing to the US spies.
And this story tells the difference between what was publicly disclosed at the time versus what apparently the actual reason for those actions was.
Re: Completely one-sided, right? (Score:3)
My point is, this is a "dog bites man" story, nothing shocking really - "the Russians were spying on us? Amazing! I can't believe it!" Said no one, ever.
So the shocking revelation is that Russia decrypted FBI communications? We're now 2 1/2 years past this discovery, has the FBI found new ways to secure their comms, or are we going to keep playing whack-a-mole deporting Russian agents? I suspect this was leaked to secure funding for new technology for FBI, much like Comey who said he "leaked" his memos on c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Russians got caught spying on the US
According to unverified hearsay passed to the tabloid press, Bezos Blog and Rupert's Rag. Just like the same old cowardly crap yellow journalism printed by Hearst and Pulitzer. The press is only making infowars look comparatively credible
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because we also do it to them, doesn't mean we're supposed to roll over and expose our backsides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"decrypt certain types of secure communications" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the Russians were taking advantage of the Dual_EC_DRBG debacle? The timing is pretty close.
If they were, could they be darlings and tell us magic number?
The NIST curves are backdoor targets also.
Re: (Score:1)
Staff gave the crypto keys to Russia for cash.
The gov crypto is using math from Russia. Made in the USA. Designed in Moscow.
Staff walked the secrets out to Russian spies and their meetings with Russians went undetected?
The US gov buys crypto from contractors and Russia just has to listen in TEMPEST style?
The crypto is great but it ends in a computer that makes it all plain text to share with o
Re: "decrypt certain types of secure communication (Score:2)
"more polygraphs" dumbest two words I've read on slashdot in a long time. You could train Donald Trump to pass one at will in a few hours. They're completely worthless. It's a wonder that the government still uses them at all. It's just security theatre at best.
Re: (Score:2)
The "polygraph" is like a full background investigation for the questions needed.
Education, history, politics, past... life, lifestyle... loyalty to the USA.
The short chat down before and after the polygraph is the part most people dont fully understand.
Anything to talk about that the machine will detect? Before its offical.
Anything that the machine detected that needs clarification after the questions? Its all offical now, but... the test is now over...
People t
Re: (Score:2)
They are unreliable and should not be allowed in criminal investigations however they are useful - especially against those that don't understand them. Many of the classic tricks to pass them can be detected and using them can be suspicious in itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Polygraphs are not completely worthless!
They work great at "catching" honest people, people with nervous tics, people that think too much, and people that are too calm.
That means only the sociopaths, the good liars, and the complete idiots get through. So, from the FBI's perspective, it works great!
Double negative (Score:1)
Maybe another word like "accusation" should have been added in there, now it's just a double negative.
CIA to cease contact with some of their Russian (Score:1)
CIA getting Russians to spy on Russia is
2016 election... no a few Russian diplomat did not drive out all over the USA and vote many, many, many times in different states... That was actual citizens all over the USA doing the voting...
"hacking into computers not connected to the internet"
By hand? In person? As an international art student walking around wanting to sell art to the US gov?
"raised concerns among some U.S. officials about a Russian mole"
First rule of a real FBI mole
Cover story was more damaging than real story (Score:5, Insightful)
Spying happens. Interference in operations is a little different. Twisting the public story to escalate fears of illegitimacy of our elected officials is the big win for the Kremlin. Not even they could have shaken the faith in the system that hard or that fast. Instead of simply toying with it, they damn near divided us to civil war....and the regular people are too fucking stupid to know why.
Re:Cover story was more damaging than real story (Score:4, Insightful)
With parts missing to protect methods... 50 years later...
Reading about real spies 2 years later is pure fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Real successes take a long time. Real, massive, public failures, .... not so much.
Re: (Score:1)
Historians cant even get to approval to "read" about project names, staff names, locations 40 and 50 years later.
Thats before then even get the needed approval to publish.
Yet we see methods and CIA projects in Russia mentioned?
Gerrymandering did more to shake my faith (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia just gave nature a nudge. The US is too large to be a unified country without government coercion. The problem began with the Civil War because the aftermath forced primitive superstitionist pro-slavers into the overall fabric of the US instead of expelling them from the North.
Right and Left should live in separate countries. The weaker nation would not be the collective globalist warmongering menace the US is today.
Pot, meet kettle. He's a darker shade of black. (Score:3, Insightful)
"The operation, which targeted FBI communications, hampered the bureau's ability to track Russian spies on U.S. soil at a time of increasing tension with Moscow, forced the FBI and CIA to cease contact with some of their Russian assets..."
Note the final three words of the quoted excerpt. An intelligence asset is not an intelligence officer - an employee of the government's intelligence agencies.
An asset is a citizen of a foreign nation, subverted and employed by another government to spy on his own country. While the CIA, whose mandate is to spy on foreign nations, naturally employs many assets, it comes as a surprise to learn the the FBI has assets of its own. The FBI's role is to enforce the law within the USA and its foreign possessions. That role includes counter-intelligence - thwarting foreign spying. I did not know that the FBI also spies on foreign nations.
But I suppose I should have known.
Re: (Score:1)
Is the CIA bringing Russian gov/mil staff to the USA for a holiday as a cover story and the FBI finds out about random Russians with mil/gov rank on tourist "holiday" in the USA.
Who from Russia get visits by US "officials" in US hotel room? FBI sees it all.
That would be one way the FBI finds out about Russians spying for the CIA in Russia in a very legal US domestic setting.
The FBI is then told to stop investigating and by default has a list of CIA spies in Russia on
Re: (Score:3)
You are reading much into something very little. FBI works with CIA in cases where their responsibilities overlap and if FBI communications aren't safe...
Ya'll are bonkers. was Re:Pot, meet kettle. (Score:2)
A police/FBI asset is nicknamed a snitch or informant. We've always known such individuals exist. Not nefarious.
Likewise, gathering information internally is also known as 'police investigation'. Also, not nefarious by default.
FBI works internally. CIA works externally. It's really not nefarious for the FBI to work internally to support monitoring or investigation activities that might be done by CIA if in another country.
One thing I've learned about Russians. . . (Score:5, Funny)
When they SAY they're going on vacation, they're really invading Ukraine.
what did they actually crack? (Score:1)
The article discusses radios and push-to-talk cellphones used by the FBI. So what kind of encryption do such devices use and how big a deal is it generally to have that type of encryption cracked?
Since its all out in the open, they could have just given the information to the rest of the public.. Unless of course wanting to spy on the said public themselves..
Re: what did they actually crack? (Score:2)
What I want to know is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody give this man a defcon award.
Double standards (Score:1)
The 1980s called... (Score:2)
"The 1980s called; they want their foreign policy back." -- Barack Hussein Obama
So new Season of "the Americans " coming to FX? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:russia russia russia (Score:5, Informative)
Democrats were also very active in the McCarthy era investigations and accusations. From Wikipedia: the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) – was the most prominent and active government committee involved in anti-communist investigations. Formed in 1938 and known as the Dies Committee, named for Rep. Martin Dies [Democrat], who chaired it until 1944.
In the Senate, the primary committee for investigating communists was the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS), formed in 1950 and charged with ensuring the enforcement of laws relating to "espionage, sabotage, and the protection of the internal security of the United States." The SISS was headed by Democrat Pat McCarran.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Commie fighting is fine. Violating citizen rights is not.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The Democrats have often been on the wrong side of history, including slavery, Japanese internment, civil rights etc.
Missing a bit... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it's also important to remember that it was pre post war realignment Democrats that were on the wrong side of history on such things. The party was hijacked by progressives during the civil rights movement and became quite the opposite of what they once were in terms of social issues.
The parts of the country Democrats represented pre alignment are mostly Republican today.
Re: (Score:2)
"pre alignment" was meant to to be "pre realignment"
Re: (Score:2)
Although the progressive branch of the Democrat party was strong enough to get Hubert Humphrey selected as their presidential candidate in 1968, and McGovern in 1972, the Democrat party was not even close to being a monopoly for them at the time. And the defeat of Humphrey and humiliation of McGovern cost them dearly.
The parts of the country Democrats represented pre alignment are mostly Republican today.
The sum of your post seems to suggest you may be referencing a discredited idea about some sort of "switch" between Republicans and Democrats in the South.
Who Were the Southern Democrats? [nationalreview.com]
The M [claremont.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, what it is to be ignorant in the name of ones political ideology.
This group of maps very clearly illustrates the realignment of which I speak https://www.270towin.com/histo... [270towin.com]. One can very clearly see here a generally blue South until the post war years when all of sudden it's the North that's Blue. Furthermore, it is indeed white Southerners who largely voted Democrat in the past and who largely vote Republican today. What I said it blatantly true in the context of states but also by race (race being
Re: russia russia russia (Score:2)
If you consider that by core definition (based on Platoâ€(TM)s Republic) that being a republican is basically being a communist (protect people from information, make them not worry about money, provide quality of life through government wealth redistribution, let the ruling class do the heavy thinki
Re: russia russia russia (Score:2)
Re: russia russia russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder if any prominent Democrats have called for a Hollywood blacklist recently?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
He's not wrong about democrats calling everyone a Russian troll, though. I got called Vlad just yesterday for stating that the assault weapons ban compromised the constitution. I generally vote Democrat, and I'm registered as one so that I can vote in the primary, but I identify as an independent specifically because I don't want to be lumped in with that kind of douchebag (and because the DNC is BS.)
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is off topic, but what the heck. I can think of ways to make the delegate voting more democratic instead of all delegate votes for a state going to one candidate. But when it comes to party registration, just so you can vote in the primary. I hate that. I understand, one vote/one party. I just wish there was a way to vote in the primary for who ever you think is the best candidate. No matter what party affiliation. I know there
Re: (Score:1)
Parties are private organizations; they have no business being funded and run by the governments!
They should be allowed to pick their candidates any way they want, have any rules about who can vote (or how) that they want... and do it all on their own dime.
If a party decides to ban all people of one type from it's primaries, who cares? The same voters are going to remember that come the general elections, when votes actually matter...
Re: (Score:2)
Parties are private organizations; they have no business being funded and run by the governments!
Perhaps not funded or run, but some level of restrictions (or revoking of power) seems reasonable given the influence that the two parties exert on the electoral process. If I can't get on the ballot to run for president as a member of the noodly-appendage party with equal effort as a Democrat/Republican then some intervention is reasonable, as we're talking about our most fundamental ideals as a nation. If we think the project of democracy is worth the effort, we should ensure that efforts to curtail it
Re: russia russia russia (Score:3)
How do you know it was a Democrat that said that? That's asserting only Democrats believe foreign trolling operations exist (or joke about them), or that all Republicans think semi-automatic rifles are untouchable per the 2nd amendment? Hell, maybe Russian trolls are calling people Vlad to throw everyone off ;)
I consider myself independent like you.
I'm curious how regulating high capacity, high throughput, semi-auto rifles in the exact same manner we regulate fully automatic machine guns would pose a prob
Re: (Score:1)
I know because of where i wrote the comment, and who replied.
Then i unfriended the guy who wrote the comment to which i replied because i had exactly the same argument with him before, and he's not actually a friend anyhow, only a FOAF. And he likes to argue about things without doing research, and so do his friends. His friends think they're liberals, then they regurgitate the centrist Democrat bullshit verbatim.
The purpose of the second amendment was to keep military firearms in the hands of the citizenry
Re: (Score:3)
I used to idealistically think that as well. My logic was that we could just amend the obviously broken and outdated parts of the constitution and get on with it.
Unfortunately, that's not the case. We clearly can't get the political will together to fix what's broken, so that leaves us with two options: 1) Continue on with a broken constitution or 2) compromise it and at least get somewhat closer to something rational. Neither are good solutions, but we do have to pick one.
The 2nd amendment was designed so
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that someone with a bolt-action .30-.30 can still go hunting or target shooting, but they can't easily mow down a crowd of people with it.
That's the point, they should fundamentally be able to mow down a crowd of people. You don't need a special license to drive an RV, but you can mow down a whole crowd of people with one of those, too. You only need the same license you'd need to drive a hatchback. You don't need any license at all to buy bleach and ammonia, and you can mow down a whole building full of people with that.
At the point at which we're talking about "you can still go hunting" we are already well and rightly fucked, because that i
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a special license to drive an RV, but you can mow down a whole crowd of people with one of those, too. You only need the same license you'd need to drive a hatchback. You don't need any license at all to buy bleach and ammonia, and you can mow down a whole building full of people with that.
None of those are constitutional rights, and if they were a problem, we could make laws to prevent them. I have no idea why you even brought these things up, because they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I have no idea why you think that an AR-15 is going to let you do anything other than cause the government to waste a lot of money killing you with much bigger weapons. You can not expect to overthrow the U.S. government with small arms. That you think so baffles me.
I don't understand your point ab
Well, read Russian news then. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want reality, go outside and check for yourself.
Everything else is just anecdotal hearsay. From the perspective the source wants to present.
Yes, including that scientific paper you read. It is *your* verification that makes it reliable for *you*.
I suggest putting your focus on what's real *to you*. What matters is not the USA/Russia, but the people around you. Like the cop or soldier who decides what rules he obeys or not. That is how peaceful revolutions start,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
For a start, the deliberate choice of the word "compound" leaps out at one. (The word is used more than once). The initial reference is to "two rural East Coast estates", and the photographs accompanying the article show quite large, but normal houses.
Anyone accustomed to the devious insinuations and subliminal manipulative language used by the Western mainstream media sees the word "compound" and immediately thinks, "Aha! They are trying to make us think of terrorist training camps, paramilitary organizations, etc."
But they are not "compounds". They are just big houses, like many owned by individuals, corporations, or US government agencies.
compound2
n noun a large open area enclosed by a fence, e.g. around a factory or within a prison. ÃSouth African an area containing single-sex living quarters for migrant workers, especially miners. Ãanother term for pound3.
ORIGIN
C17: from Portuguese campon or Dutch kampoeng, from Malay kampong 'enclosure, hamlet'; cf. kampong.
The second photo is a shot of the house, through a fence. So it fits the definition. The first house is rather large as well and, if these residences were being used by Russian foreign service officers, most likely also had fencing and other protective measures. Especially if they also had espionage equipment and officers posted in those facilities. So yes, "compound" is a correct term. In fact, looking at the second photo of the red Maryland house shows a gated entrance.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of my family lives in a compound. There's two houses and a pool house, and a fence around it.
It doesn't have to be around a factory or prison to be a compound in the common use today. It just needs to be a large fenced area dedicated to some purpose. It's a common real estate term.