1 Dead in Pakistan Consulate Attack

[fadedpsychosis]

network accessibility would be my guess...

and as far as the burning thing goes, that's what we did in Iraq... every week anything even vaguely classified we didn't need anymore we took out to a burn pit made of cinder blocks and burned stuff, stirring it with a bit of rebar with a clamp on it (so we wouldn't burn our hands)

Hmm... I would think the US government would have better network accessability tools than a private company. And I have awesome network accessibility.

HAH!! I had CRAP network access at work at my last base, and that was in Ohio... even worse here in Italy, and I don't even want to think about running crypto through a local ISP at an embassy... they'd likely be running it through a satellite shot and those are slow as hell too

[fadedpsychosis]

just remember the maxim of govt contracts: lowest bidder wins... (excluding bribes and markups and afterward price hikes etc)

[BigBallinStalin]

just remember the maxim of govt contracts: lowest bidder wins... (excluding bribes and markups and afterward price hikes etc)

Good enough for government work!

[fadedpsychosis]

just remember the maxim of govt contracts: lowest bidder wins... (excluding bribes and markups and afterward price hikes etc)

Good enough for government work!

exactly!

[Woodruff]

Speaking of Iran, remember during around GOP primary debate time the "threat" of Iranian ground invasion of Israel?

I'm still laughing at that one.

That wasn't even the worst of it in the Republican primary "debates."

Sorry to take this back a few pages, but... seriously, why in the hell would the US store sensitive data on computers in embassies in potentially hostile foreign countries?

Because the security personnel and diplomats need it. I can think of a few reasons why the diplomats would need it, and MANY reasons why the security personnel would.

Okay, I understand that security personnel and diplomats would need sensitive data. But why must it be stored on a computer? Why could it not be accessed remotely from that computer?

Most likely because you don't always have access to the network, even the high-classified military networks.

I work for a firm where all data is stored remotely. If someone manages to get into my computer, they would have no access to any sensitive data because it is not stored on my computer.

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Looking back, I don't think I worded my question correctly. I was not asking why sensitive data has to be available. I was trying to ask why sensitive data had to be stored on the hard drive of a computer (rather than remotely accessed).

Computers do have the advantage of higher encryption capabilities (making the "given time" reference above less of a makeable position). So really, computers are probably more secure than hardcopies in a safe, for instance. And like you mentioned, accessing it over a network (with appropriate security protocols) would be more secure than having it stored locally.

The other aspect though is RAM. Information can be pulled from RAM too, so just because it hasn't been on your hard drive doesn't necessarily mean it can't be accessed on your computer.

[Phatscotty]

Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch
L.A. man began cooperating after 2009 fraud bust

In remarks stressing that the U.S. government had “absolutely nothing to do with” the anti-Islam film that has touched off violence in the Middle East, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday sought to quash Arab concerns that the “disgusting and reprehensible” movie was somehow produced or condoned by American officials.

However, Clinton’s attempt to distance the U.S. from “Innocence of Muslims”--and, by extension, its felonious producer--may be complicated by the revelation that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula became a government informant after his 2009 arrest for bank fraud.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... ion-756920

[Woodruff]

network accessibility would be my guess...

and as far as the burning thing goes, that's what we did in Iraq... every week anything even vaguely classified we didn't need anymore we took out to a burn pit made of cinder blocks and burned stuff, stirring it with a bit of rebar with a clamp on it (so we wouldn't burn our hands)

Hmm... I would think the US government would have better network accessability tools than a private company. And I have awesome network accessibility.

Satellite access is notoriously painful and slow.

[thegreekdog]

network accessibility would be my guess...

and as far as the burning thing goes, that's what we did in Iraq... every week anything even vaguely classified we didn't need anymore we took out to a burn pit made of cinder blocks and burned stuff, stirring it with a bit of rebar with a clamp on it (so we wouldn't burn our hands)

Hmm... I would think the US government would have better network accessability tools than a private company. And I have awesome network accessibility.

HAH!! I had CRAP network access at work at my last base, and that was in Ohio... even worse here in Italy, and I don't even want to think about running crypto through a local ISP at an embassy... they'd likely be running it through a satellite shot and those are slow as hell too

Really? That does not make me feel good at all.

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Fair. But could the owner of the network kick off access from that particular computer? For example, if the computer in the embassy in Libya was stolen, couldn't the US State Department remove access to their network? Or is that network access inherent in the computer?

This is really disturbing to me (clearly).

[Woodruff]

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Fair. But could the owner of the network kick off access from that particular computer? For example, if the computer in the embassy in Libya was stolen, couldn't the US State Department remove access to their network? Or is that network access inherent in the computer?

Yes and no. Could they remove the access, sure. But as I said, there's no such thing as a secure computer if it can still be connected to the network (which becomes more likely if it has EVER been connected to the network, for someone who knows what to do). Basically, ANY computer can break into a network in the right hands, but a system that has already been a part of a network of that nature is going to be an easier tool to use in doing so, because of the nature of access information that would reside on that computer.

[fadedpsychosis]

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Fair. But could the owner of the network kick off access from that particular computer? For example, if the computer in the embassy in Libya was stolen, couldn't the US State Department remove access to their network? Or is that network access inherent in the computer?

This is really disturbing to me (clearly).

it boils down to the way networks.. well work. If the system is on the domain, then yes I can remove its access to the domain, but the domain information is still on the computer itself... IP addresses, domain name, domain controller name and IP, DNS... all of it makes it that much easier to get back into the network. This is all actually part of what my job for the AF is (and I assume that Woodruff used to do the same or a similar job) so trust me when I say I WISH it was that easy. Now there are safeguards you can put into a system, but anyone with enough time and know-how is going to be able to get past those safeguards eventually (same as if you had things in a safe... eventually someone will be able to break in with enough time and the right tools).

[thegreekdog]

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Fair. But could the owner of the network kick off access from that particular computer? For example, if the computer in the embassy in Libya was stolen, couldn't the US State Department remove access to their network? Or is that network access inherent in the computer?

This is really disturbing to me (clearly).

it boils down to the way networks.. well work. If the system is on the domain, then yes I can remove its access to the domain, but the domain information is still on the computer itself... IP addresses, domain name, domain controller name and IP, DNS... all of it makes it that much easier to get back into the network. This is all actually part of what my job for the AF is (and I assume that Woodruff used to do the same or a similar job) so trust me when I say I WISH it was that easy. Now there are safeguards you can put into a system, but anyone with enough time and know-how is going to be able to get past those safeguards eventually (same as if you had things in a safe... eventually someone will be able to break in with enough time and the right tools).

Clearly you're the person to talk to (and Woodruff) and sorry for all the questions.

Is the US government making any effort to further securitize the data it makes available to embassies?
Is anyone in the US government concerned about the data in embassies? From an outsider's point of view, it does not seem they are much concerned.
Does the need for sensitive information in the Libyan embassy outweigh the need to keep that sensitive information secret?

[fadedpsychosis]

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Fair. But could the owner of the network kick off access from that particular computer? For example, if the computer in the embassy in Libya was stolen, couldn't the US State Department remove access to their network? Or is that network access inherent in the computer?

This is really disturbing to me (clearly).

it boils down to the way networks.. well work. If the system is on the domain, then yes I can remove its access to the domain, but the domain information is still on the computer itself... IP addresses, domain name, domain controller name and IP, DNS... all of it makes it that much easier to get back into the network. This is all actually part of what my job for the AF is (and I assume that Woodruff used to do the same or a similar job) so trust me when I say I WISH it was that easy. Now there are safeguards you can put into a system, but anyone with enough time and know-how is going to be able to get past those safeguards eventually (same as if you had things in a safe... eventually someone will be able to break in with enough time and the right tools).

Clearly you're the person to talk to (and Woodruff) and sorry for all the questions.

Is the US government making any effort to further securitize the data it makes available to embassies?
Is anyone in the US government concerned about the data in embassies? From an outsider's point of view, it does not seem they are much concerned.
Does the need for sensitive information in the Libyan embassy outweigh the need to keep that sensitive information secret?

keep in mind, the information on these computers was never meant to leave those computers save for other official use. They're there for the use of the ambassadors (who usually need a certain level of information as they are essentially acting in stead of our govt. with regards to the country they're in) and for the use of other personnel that are working to ensure our country's best interests in the area. Embassies are also one of the focal points of national security in the country they're in... say for instance I loose my passport or it gets stolen while I'm here: if I were a civilian, I'd report that to the embassy (being military I have a different report chain that I think involves the embassy anyway). As I said, there are safeguards on the material, but honestly it was never meant to get out of our control.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Fair. But could the owner of the network kick off access from that particular computer? For example, if the computer in the embassy in Libya was stolen, couldn't the US State Department remove access to their network? Or is that network access inherent in the computer?

This is really disturbing to me (clearly).

it boils down to the way networks.. well work. If the system is on the domain, then yes I can remove its access to the domain, but the domain information is still on the computer itself... IP addresses, domain name, domain controller name and IP, DNS... all of it makes it that much easier to get back into the network. This is all actually part of what my job for the AF is (and I assume that Woodruff used to do the same or a similar job) so trust me when I say I WISH it was that easy. Now there are safeguards you can put into a system, but anyone with enough time and know-how is going to be able to get past those safeguards eventually (same as if you had things in a safe... eventually someone will be able to break in with enough time and the right tools).

Clearly you're the person to talk to (and Woodruff) and sorry for all the questions.

Is the US government making any effort to further securitize the data it makes available to embassies?
Is anyone in the US government concerned about the data in embassies? From an outsider's point of view, it does not seem they are much concerned.
Does the need for sensitive information in the Libyan embassy outweigh the need to keep that sensitive information secret?

keep in mind, the information on these computers was never meant to leave those computers save for other official use. They're there for the use of the ambassadors (who usually need a certain level of information as they are essentially acting in stead of our govt. with regards to the country they're in) and for the use of other personnel that are working to ensure our country's best interests in the area. Embassies are also one of the focal points of national security in the country they're in... say for instance I loose my passport or it gets stolen while I'm here: if I were a civilian, I'd report that to the embassy (being military I have a different report chain that I think involves the embassy anyway). As I said, there are safeguards on the material, but honestly it was never meant to get out of our control.

Okay, that makes sense. But when the embassy is within a country that has a rather large group that has some animosity towards the U.S., wouldn't security measures by tighter? I'm not concerned with highly sensitive information being on a computer in the UK or Canada. But I would be more concerned with highly sensitive information being on a computer in Pakistan or Libya. I guess the answer is that we cannot account for all eventualities. It still doesn't make me feel good.

[fadedpsychosis]

Actually, that's not accurate at all. There is no such thing as a secure computer as long as it is connected to a network. Actually, there is no such thing as a secure computer unless it has no power. Otherwise, it is inherently insecure and all that can be done is to make it as secure as you can. I guess what I'm saying is...if you could access the data over your network from your computer, so could I (given time).

Fair. But could the owner of the network kick off access from that particular computer? For example, if the computer in the embassy in Libya was stolen, couldn't the US State Department remove access to their network? Or is that network access inherent in the computer?

This is really disturbing to me (clearly).

it boils down to the way networks.. well work. If the system is on the domain, then yes I can remove its access to the domain, but the domain information is still on the computer itself... IP addresses, domain name, domain controller name and IP, DNS... all of it makes it that much easier to get back into the network. This is all actually part of what my job for the AF is (and I assume that Woodruff used to do the same or a similar job) so trust me when I say I WISH it was that easy. Now there are safeguards you can put into a system, but anyone with enough time and know-how is going to be able to get past those safeguards eventually (same as if you had things in a safe... eventually someone will be able to break in with enough time and the right tools).

Clearly you're the person to talk to (and Woodruff) and sorry for all the questions.

Is the US government making any effort to further securitize the data it makes available to embassies?
Is anyone in the US government concerned about the data in embassies? From an outsider's point of view, it does not seem they are much concerned.
Does the need for sensitive information in the Libyan embassy outweigh the need to keep that sensitive information secret?

keep in mind, the information on these computers was never meant to leave those computers save for other official use. They're there for the use of the ambassadors (who usually need a certain level of information as they are essentially acting in stead of our govt. with regards to the country they're in) and for the use of other personnel that are working to ensure our country's best interests in the area. Embassies are also one of the focal points of national security in the country they're in... say for instance I loose my passport or it gets stolen while I'm here: if I were a civilian, I'd report that to the embassy (being military I have a different report chain that I think involves the embassy anyway). As I said, there are safeguards on the material, but honestly it was never meant to get out of our control.

Okay, that makes sense. But when the embassy is within a country that has a rather large group that has some animosity towards the U.S., wouldn't security measures by tighter? I'm not concerned with highly sensitive information being on a computer in the UK or Canada. But I would be more concerned with highly sensitive information being on a computer in Pakistan or Libya. I guess the answer is that we cannot account for all eventualities. It still doesn't make me feel good.

believe me, I agree with you, I'm not happy about the situation either... but do keep in mind, which is going to need the intel more, the guy in the UK, or the guy who's in harms way? there WAS much higher security measures in Libya, but obviously it wasn't enough

[2dimes]

This is making me think about taking my stars and stripes trousers out of my pre-packed Europian weekend getaway bag.

Yeah I wouldn't do that if I were you.
Everyone's gonna laugh at you and you'll want to kill yourself.

What? Everyone's going to laugh if I don't have them next trip across the pond? Why?

[Phatscotty]

[fadedpsychosis]

not even going to bother... reality checks from Fox tend to bounce

[GreecePwns]

Actually, this guy is very good. I suggest you do check it out.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, this guy is very good. I suggest you do check it out.

So, in brief (for tl;dw):

- US, France arm (directly or indirectly) Libyan rebels.
- Libyan rebels include "terrorists" (i.e. those people that want the US and France out of the affairs of Libya);
- Libyan rebels including "terrorists" use the weapons received from the US and France to make the attack on the embassy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, this guy is very good. I suggest you do check it out.

So, in brief (for tl;dw):

- US, France arm (directly or indirectly) Libyan rebels.
- Libyan rebels include "terrorists" (i.e. those people that want the US and France out of the affairs of Libya);
- Libyan rebels including "terrorists" use the weapons received from the US and France to make the attack on the embassy.

Whoa, surprise, surprise.


I haven't seen any good evidence for the last claim though. For me, it's been an assumption or a Big Maybe.

[fadedpsychosis]

Actually, this guy is very good. I suggest you do check it out.

So, in brief (for tl;dw):

- US, France arm (directly or indirectly) Libyan rebels.
- Libyan rebels include "terrorists" (i.e. those people that want the US and France out of the affairs of Libya);
- Libyan rebels including "terrorists" use the weapons received from the US and France to make the attack on the embassy.

Whoa, surprise, surprise.


I haven't seen any good evidence for the last claim though. For me, it's been an assumption or a Big Maybe.

if true it'd be the exact same thing that happened in Afghanistan...

[BigBallinStalin]

Blowback, baby!

I LOVE IT.

Same thing happened in Iraq 1999, but hey, they only killed a few of our troops with equipment we sold them to use against the Iranians.

Hey, and I'm not sure, but some portion of all that equipment which we've given to all the various substate organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya for the past 12 years has gone to terrorist/anti-US insurgent organizations.

What percent could that be?
Are the proper intelligence agencies willing to conduct such research? (is it even possible?) Or would such research lead to damning themselves for their own negligence?

[2dimes]

A couple of decades ago no one would dare attack a US embassy. I suspect they know you're broke and have got all soft.

[BigBallinStalin]

A couple of decades ago no one would dare attack a US embassy. I suspect they know you're broke and have got all soft.

I agree in the case of Afghanistan.


Unfriendly fire has resulted in 51 deaths of ISAF personnel over roughly 6 years, but this was enough to restrict all joint-operations between ISAF and Afghan soldiers. Only at the battalion level and under special permissions can such operations take place.

51 dead, and the resistance movement has undermined the effectiveness of joint-operations, NATO training of Afghan forces, and US/NATO consulate activities within Afghanistan. In turn, this increases their chances of gaining a stronger hold on Afghanistan after the ISAF essentially evacuates in 2014.

It's amazing. Not only that but I'd imagine the trust between Afghan and non-Afghan soldiers has significantly decreased, which negatively affects coordination of all activities between the two groups.

Throw in the "Muhammad is a jerk" youtube video, mix it with some effective marketing by the substate organizations, and you've got a very low-cost means of undermining the goals of one's enemies.


Then, as the US, spend trillions on invading and occupying two countries, bomb another one, and hey! somehow the US is financially and militarily constrained. Let's spend some more money on antagonizing the Chinese too, while subsidizing the national security of Japan and South Korea. Makes sense, amirite?

[2dimes]

Well I just mean presuming there is not some covert activities going on I'm not aware of. Even Carter would have sent guys into Lybia if an embassy was attacked. That used to be a pretty serious thing. They were secure just because everyone knew it would be like shaking a hornets nest.