Mike Waltz claims ‘full responsibility’ for Signal chat group leaked to journalist

[TangoNoCash]

Yes I am, as I'm skeptical if such a exploits exist in Signal. You are applying concepts without support that they are applicable.

They are supported if you understand the topic. These aren’t secret techniques. The government knows about them which is why the policy is what it is. You’re literally trying to say if a specific vulnerability doesn’t exist something is secure. That’s ludicrous on every front.

This assertion is based on what expertise in government classification of information?

I don’t take your argument that this information isn’t classified seriously. Sorry.

I don't recall that being in the cited NSA buliten, and you won't specifically point it out to support your assertion.

I’ve already posted it for you.

Neither point I contest.


Something that's not even made it out of the labs. Hmm.

There’s a couple hundred quantum computers in existence capable of this task. You don’t think any of them get used for it? Seems naive but sure. Either way it’s inevitable and your endorsing bad security policy.

Do you suppose that there's a black budget line item for Google to build a quantum computer for the NSA?
I'll grant you that maybe there is.

Yeah absolutely a thing.

The disallowed still contested until you cite and point to what it is you are exactly referring to.

I’m almost positive it’s been posted numerous times in this thread. I’m pretty sure I’ve already replied to you specifically already with it. It’s in the same page your cherry picked version originally came from.

So you keep asserting, but not presenting.
I've cited the screen grab which seems to say the opposite

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Don’t use a cropped screenshot and read the full text would be my suggestion.

On Twitter? Oh hell no.
I seem to recall that there are a number of exploits against Twitter which have been made public.

Not what I was saying at all.

But then, Signal isn't Twitter, is it?
So what is your point standing on again, exactly?

Yeah you missed the point. It was, if it’s not something you think should publicly posted on Twitter openly by the government concerning an ongoing operation it’s probably classified.

As another aside. This sidesteps all record keeping in regards to what the government is doing. Do you really think that’s good policy. Please keep in mind this will apply to he next Democrat administration. Should all government internal communication be hidden from us? I’m clearly on the no side of this argument. You currently are in support. You sure that’s wise?

 

[eohrnberger]

Fair enough.

There was no filtering which I was suspecting, the same page rendering at home.

I did find The Atlantic Article on archive.org.

I reviewed that, and from what the author was describing (he admits hold a few bits back), there are a few bits of info in the group's chatter which could be considered as sensitive, but nothing that appears to be out right compromising of what ended up being a successful operation.
No operational details that I could infer. This makes sense in that the people in the chart were a number of levels above those details.

One reference in the chart's texts was:

“Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes.” (High side, in government parlance, refers to classified computer and communications systems.)​

My guess would be that the classified information would be in those 'high side inboxes'.

On this review of what's available to me, I'm leaning more to the conclusion which SecDef had made public, that there was no classified info. in the chart texts.

 

[SavannahMann]

What I've seen from the communications didn't contain all of that.
If you can cite where you are getting this from, I'll read it and consider it.

The first release by the Journalist did not contain that. He kept most of the sensitive data out of the news. He has it. But he was keeping it from publication for obvious reasons.

I think he should publish it. After all the Administration has said there was nothing secret in it. If the Admin later tried to prosecute him for publishing secret information his defense would be their own speeches wouldn’t it?

 

[iguanaman]

No, no it isn't. The use of signal is the entire problem, not that they embarrassed themselves with an unintentional invite. Commercial apps (ALL OF THEM) are much easier to compromise than government SCIFs and high security communication systems. If our enemies hadn't already hacked signal before this incident, they damn well have now. Then there is the REASON they are using signal. It automatically deletes messages after a short time. We have government record keeping laws which they are intentionally circumventing. It's illegal and corrupt as hell.

Of course the Trump administration would pick the most corrupt app. to use. It is that clown Hegseth that posted top secret info on a unsecure app and needs to resign for that. I believe that any other military official would face court martial for that same crime.

 

[eohrnberger]

They are supported if you understand the topic. These aren’t secret techniques. The government knows about them which is why the policy is what it is.

None of these assertions you are claiming that I made are ones which I've actually made.

You’re literally trying to say if a specific vulnerability doesn’t exist something is secure. That’s ludicrous on every front.

No, that's not what I'm asserting. I know better than to make a blanket assertion because of lack of X vulnerability product Y is secure.

But unless you can point to a publicized MiM exploit of Signal you are on weak ground that this is a vulnerability.
Signal was designed to be specifically hardened against MiM exploits.
If Signal wasn't, would the NSA support the policy which permits it, now would they?

I don’t take your argument that this information isn’t classified seriously. Sorry.

Oh of course not. I'd expect nothing less from you.

I’ve already posted it for you.

Actually, no you haven't.
I pulled up every one of your posts here in this thread, and you've yet to provide any citations or link at all, much less one to the NSA notification you keep talking about.
I'm starting to believe this is the same level of fiction as you keep about my posts of which you keep making inaccurate assertions.

There’s a couple hundred quantum computers in existence capable of this task. You don’t think any of them get used for it? Seems naive but sure.

I'm rather skeptical that there are 'a couple hundred quantum computers in existence'.
How about some support in the form of a citation for your latest assertion?
Or is that just something you don't do, support your arguments with citations?

Either way it’s inevitable and your endorsing bad security policy.

I don't believe I've endorsed any security policy.

Yeah absolutely a thing.

I’m almost positive it’s been posted numerous times in this thread. I’m pretty sure I’ve already replied to you specifically already with it. It’s in the same page your cherry picked version originally came from.

See above. I checked, and no you haven't.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Don’t use a cropped screenshot and read the full text would be my suggestion.

Read the full text of something which you've not cited? Gotcha. Aaa, nope.

Not what I was saying at all.

Yeah you missed the point. It was, if it’s not something you think should publicly posted on Twitter openly by the government concerning an ongoing operation it’s probably classified.

Nice theory, except government classification doesn't work that way.

As another aside. This sidesteps all record keeping in regards to what the government is doing.

Not necessarily.
In this case, the onus does fall on the participants to provide those records to the archivist.
In the journalist's article which I read, he mentioned that the classified information was in the participant's 'high side inboxes' (see post #352).

Do you really think that’s good policy. Please keep in mind this will apply to he next Democrat administration. Should all government internal communication be hidden from us? I’m clearly on the no side of this argument. You currently are in support. You sure that’s wise?

You are claiming I've asserted things which I've not asserted or claimed, again.

 

[eohrnberger]

The first release by the Journalist did not contain that. He kept most of the sensitive data out of the news. He has it. But he was keeping it from publication for obvious reasons.

We have a known anti-administration journalist who claims classified information was in the chat.
We have the SecDef, DNI and Dir CIA who all testified to congress that there was no classified information in the chat.

Aren't you believing a known anti-administration journalist unsupported claims over sworn testimony to Congress?

Can you see the issue here, which causes well warranted skepticism of the journalist's unsupported claims?

I think he should publish it. After all the Administration has said there was nothing secret in it. If the Admin later tried to prosecute him for publishing secret information his defense would be their own speeches wouldn’t it?

On the other hand, if there isn't any classified info in the chat and he publishes it, it'd be egg all over his face.

The decision to publish, or not, is clearly in that journalists' hands.

He's not going to publish those, as it would probably weaken, and / or disprove, his claims about them.

 

[eohrnberger]

Of course the Trump administration would pick the most corrupt app. to use.

I'll let your ignorance of your statement above stand all on it's own.

It is that clown Hegseth that posted top secret info on a unsecure app and needs to resign for that. I believe that any other military official would face court martial for that same crime.

 

[TangoNoCash]

None of these assertions you are claiming that I made are ones which I've actually made.


No, that's not what I'm asserting. I know better than to make a blanket assertion because of lack of X vulnerability product Y is secure.

But unless you can point to a publicized MiM exploit of Signal you are on weak ground that this is a vulnerability.
Signal was designed to be specifically hardened against MiM exploits.
If Signal wasn't, would the NSA support the policy which permits it, now would they?


Oh of course not. I'd expect nothing less from you.


Actually, no you haven't.
I pulled up every one of your posts here in this thread, and you've yet to provide any citations or link at all, much less one to the NSA notification you keep talking about.
I'm starting to believe this is the same level of fiction as you keep about my posts of which you keep making inaccurate assertions.


I'm rather skeptical that there are 'a couple hundred quantum computers in existence'.
How about some support in the form of a citation for your latest assertion?
Or is that just something you don't do, support your arguments with citations?


I don't believe I've endorsed any security policy.




See above. I checked, and no you haven't.


Read the full text of something which you've not cited? Gotcha. Aaa, nope.




Nice theory, except government classification doesn't work that way.


Not necessarily.
In this case, the onus does fall on the participants to provide those records to the archivist.
In the journalist's article which I read, he mentioned that the classified information was in the participant's 'high side inboxes' (see post #352).


You are claiming I've asserted things which I've not asserted or claimed, again.

Sorry I misunderstood you as making excuses for this. My apologies.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sorry I misunderstood you as making excuses for this. My apologies.

No worries.

 

[SavannahMann]

We have a known anti-administration journalist who claims classified information was in the chat.
We have the SecDef, DNI and Dir CIA who all testified to congress that there was no classified information in the chat.

Aren't you believing a known anti-administration journalist unsupported claims over sworn testimony to Congress?

Can you see the issue here, which causes well warranted skepticism of the journalist's unsupported claims?


On the other hand, if there isn't any classified info in the chat and he publishes it, it'd be egg all over his face.

The decision to publish, or not, is clearly in that journalists' hands.

He's not going to publish those, as it would probably weaken, and / or disprove, his claims about them.

Well I saw an interview with the Journalist. He says they went to all the agencies and asked if there was anything in it they wanted removed. DNI and DHS said no. The CIA said yes and wanted “a couple” things removed before they were published. Does that make it classified?

 

[eohrnberger]

Well I saw an interview with the Journalist. He says they went to all the agencies and asked if there was anything in it they wanted removed. DNI and DHS said no. The CIA said yes and wanted “a couple” things removed before they were published.

Does that make it classified?

Actually no, it doesn't 'make' it classified. There's a formal process to do so, isn't there?

 

[SavannahMann]

Actually no, it doesn't 'make' it classified. There's a formal process to do so, isn't there?

Actually some things are automatically classified. Names of active agents. Ways and means of collection. Operational details.

That’s why the DoD has rules about what can be discussed and where. If you are communicating over distance, what kind of communications security you must use.

Now when I was a new Soldier in the Army we were still using the Vinson system for voice encryption. If we believed we had compromised communications channels we were supposed to use the term Walker in a sentence. That was chosen because the Walker Spy Ring had sold the design to the Soviets.

Despite the Soviets knowing how the system worked, it was determined by the powers that be that it wouldn’t help them as the encryption key changed daily at midnight. Supposedly. It didn’t always happen due to operational requirements.

We were instructed that no strategic information was to be transmitted on Vinson. Only Tactical info. Since I was a Squad Driver and Radioman, I wouldn’t have access to Strategic information anyway. I always thought that requirement pretty much shot down the claim that the system was really secure even though the Soviets had it.

We were also trained to never use proper names for people or locations. Code names whenever possible. Assume that others are listening.

Ever since people have been producing various programs that they claim encrypts the data so even the NSA can’t read it I’ve thought it was BS. If the NSA couldn’t read it at first, they would damn sure hire a Professor to figure out how to read it quickly. If they had to they would break in and insert a back door into the app.

If the Americans can do it, the Russians and Chinese aren’t far behind.

There is no way on this Earth that there is going to be a way for people to communicate that the Government can’t read. They route phone calls and emails out of the nation so the NSA can read it legally. How many data centers do they need to not monitor the rest of us.

Again. If we can do it. The Russians and Chinese sure as hell can.

 

[eohrnberger]

Actually some things are automatically classified. Names of active agents. Ways and means of collection. Operational details.

That’s why the DoD has rules about what can be discussed and where. If you are communicating over distance, what kind of communications security you must use.

Now when I was a new Soldier in the Army we were still using the Vinson system for voice encryption. If we believed we had compromised communications channels we were supposed to use the term Walker in a sentence. That was chosen because the Walker Spy Ring had sold the design to the Soviets.

Despite the Soviets knowing how the system worked, it was determined by the powers that be that it wouldn’t help them as the encryption key changed daily at midnight. Supposedly. It didn’t always happen due to operational requirements.

We were instructed that no strategic information was to be transmitted on Vinson. Only Tactical info. Since I was a Squad Driver and Radioman, I wouldn’t have access to Strategic information anyway. I always thought that requirement pretty much shot down the claim that the system was really secure even though the Soviets had it.

We were also trained to never use proper names for people or locations. Code names whenever possible. Assume that others are listening.

Ever since people have been producing various programs that they claim encrypts the data so even the NSA can’t read it I’ve thought it was BS. If the NSA couldn’t read it at first, they would damn sure hire a Professor to figure out how to read it quickly. If they had to they would break in and insert a back door into the app.

If the Americans can do it, the Russians and Chinese aren’t far behind.

There is no way on this Earth that there is going to be a way for people to communicate that the Government can’t read. They route phone calls and emails out of the nation so the NSA can read it legally. How many data centers do they need to not monitor the rest of us.

Again. If we can do it. The Russians and Chinese sure as hell can.

Good background. Thanks.

 

[beefheart]

 

[Lutherf]

Because the staffer was at fault, not the department head. I have no problem punishing whoever added Goldberg to the chat. That would seem to be a prudent thing to do.