93henfan wrote:I'll also add, people who have had clearances for decades are now getting held up indefinitely on reclearances because of cyber theft and idiots like this. This kind of sucks during a tactical job-hopping operation!
Our efficient federal Government.
I'm still dealing with my identity being stolen during the OMB fiasco. 
Many do. I don't know about the other branches, but most of the my 10 yrs in defense was with the USN and USMC. From my first contract in 06 to my last in '16, I saw an increase in INFOSEC and COMSEC control by the USN and USMC. I had heard the USAF was a joke. But in my experience, working on C4ISR and C5ISR projects, the compartmentalization of information was greatly improved.CID1990 wrote:Another ongoing issue is how the computer age has done a lot of damage to the concept of need to know.
That transtesticle that gave Wikileaks all the cables, and the turd hiding out in Russia who stole a terabyte of info from the NSA- neither of them should have had access to any of that stuff. The fact that an Army IT weenie had access to State Dept cables is ridiculous.
I can go on the class system and look at all kinds of things that I have no need to know. Back in the day when I was in the Navy I had access to emitter data and nothing else - because electronic warfare was my job (and it was all paper). I didn't need to know what the foreign minister of Estonia was eating for lunch.
We need to compartmentalize the sh1t out of these systems and then limit people to their lanes.
Who'd want it?Ibanez wrote:93henfan wrote:I'll also add, people who have had clearances for decades are now getting held up indefinitely on reclearances because of cyber theft and idiots like this. This kind of sucks during a tactical job-hopping operation!
Our efficient federal Government.
Whoever it was....sure enjoyed a weekend at some motel in Kentucky.Ivytalk wrote:Who'd want it?Ibanez wrote:
SCI. That's the ticket. Really not that complicated.Ibanez wrote:Many do. I don't know about the other branches, but most of the my 10 yrs in defense was with the USN and USMC. From my first contract in 06 to my last in '16, I saw an increase in INFOSEC and COMSEC control by the USN and USMC. I had heard the USAF was a joke. But in my experience, working on C4ISR and C5ISR projects, the compartmentalization of information was greatly improved.CID1990 wrote:Another ongoing issue is how the computer age has done a lot of damage to the concept of need to know.
That transtesticle that gave Wikileaks all the cables, and the turd hiding out in Russia who stole a terabyte of info from the NSA- neither of them should have had access to any of that stuff. The fact that an Army IT weenie had access to State Dept cables is ridiculous.
I can go on the class system and look at all kinds of things that I have no need to know. Back in the day when I was in the Navy I had access to emitter data and nothing else - because electronic warfare was my job (and it was all paper). I didn't need to know what the foreign minister of Estonia was eating for lunch.
We need to compartmentalize the sh1t out of these systems and then limit people to their lanes.
DHS was a joke, IMO.
- Spoiler: show
Hey, he probably enjoyed flush toilets for the first time.Ibanez wrote:Whoever it was....sure enjoyed a weekend at some motel in Kentucky.Ivytalk wrote: Who'd want it?
AZGrizFan wrote:SCI. That's the ticket. Really not that complicated.Ibanez wrote: Many do. I don't know about the other branches, but most of the my 10 yrs in defense was with the USN and USMC. From my first contract in 06 to my last in '16, I saw an increase in INFOSEC and COMSEC control by the USN and USMC. I had heard the USAF was a joke. But in my experience, working on C4ISR and C5ISR projects, the compartmentalization of information was greatly improved.
DHS was a joke, IMO.
- Spoiler: show
You could do that with SURROGAT profiles. But that's a problem in and of itself.CID1990 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
SCI. That's the ticket. Really not that complicated.
No in fact that would be worse
Then everyone with SCI clearance would be able to look at ALL the SCI stuff.
Ironically, DOS has a system in place (and has had it since the teletype days) that could solve this. Every cable has specific tags and designators that indicate what lane it belongs in. If you arent in that lane, you dont get it.
i realize this would require the creation of literally thousands if not millions of designators, but this is the computer age and it needs to be done. It also would make it much easier to canary trap assholes who like to leak classified under the guise of "whistleblowing"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would be easy to do - just hire a halfway competent IT firm to figure it outIbanez wrote:You could do that with SURROGAT profiles. But that's a problem in and of itself.CID1990 wrote:
No in fact that would be worse
Then everyone with SCI clearance would be able to look at ALL the SCI stuff.
Ironically, DOS has a system in place (and has had it since the teletype days) that could solve this. Every cable has specific tags and designators that indicate what lane it belongs in. If you arent in that lane, you dont get it.
i realize this would require the creation of literally thousands if not millions of designators, but this is the computer age and it needs to be done. It also would make it much easier to canary trap assholes who like to leak classified under the guise of "whistleblowing"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's right about the donks trying to shift blame for their losing what should have been a landslide.JohnStOnge wrote:Trump looks at the whole idea of Russian involvement as an excuse by the Democrats for losing. He's stated repeatedly that there's no reason to believe the Russians were involved in trying to impact the election. He is full of **** in that regard. No surprise since he is full of **** all the time.Skjellyfetti wrote:Eh. It doesn't speak to the Trump team's involvement one way or the other. This was about Russian hacking into state election systems. And, what was leaked wasn't even the whole story to that piece of it.
We knew that bitch was a COMSYMP.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't know if Clinton would've won if you removed the Russians as a factor but to suggest that they weren't a factor increasing the probability of her losing is ridiculous. There is no way to know if she'd have won without any Russian interference. But it was an extremely close election. Trump won by less than 1% in each of the three key States that everyone talks about (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin). And it happened in the context of a constant Wikileaks drip of information designed to hurt Clinton's chances.BDKJMU wrote:
Its true. If you thing the Russians had anything to do with Hildacunt losing then you are reallyThe Russians had zero to do with Clinton losing.
But congratulations on being on the same side as the Putin when it comes to the well being of the United States.
Stunning new revelation that is.CID1990 wrote:When we give people like this a security clearance.....
Yeah I'd say we are incompetent
Speaking of treasonous cunts - If the Russians want to know any of this stuff all they have to do is have their ambassador summon Trump to the Oval office for an explanation.BDKJMU wrote:"...A federal prosecutor said in court that authorities had uncovered a series of “new and downright frightening" other acts by Winner, including inserting a thumb drive into her Air Force computer and taking classified information while she was still in the military.
“When you take a thumb drive in a top-secret computer as she did, we don’t know what happened to it," U.S. Magistrate Judge Brian Epps said at the hearing. “That falls into the landscape of danger to the community but it is also a danger to the nation."...
...journal which federal agents found during a search of her Augusta home. She allegedly expressed support in her writings for Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden as well as proclaiming she wanted to burn down the White House.
“She seems to have a fascination with the Middle East and Islamic terrorism," Epps said. He quoted her as having written: “It’s a Christlike vision to have a fundamentalist Islamic state.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ied-report
BTW, the treasonous cunt was denied bail..
,Wow. She's so screwed.BDKJMU wrote:"...A federal prosecutor said in court that authorities had uncovered a series of “new and downright frightening" other acts by Winner, including inserting a thumb drive into her Air Force computer and taking classified information while she was still in the military.
“When you take a thumb drive in a top-secret computer as she did, we don’t know what happened to it," U.S. Magistrate Judge Brian Epps said at the hearing. “That falls into the landscape of danger to the community but it is also a danger to the nation."...
...journal which federal agents found during a search of her Augusta home. She allegedly expressed support in her writings for Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden as well as proclaiming she wanted to burn down the White House.
“She seems to have a fascination with the Middle East and Islamic terrorism," Epps said. He quoted her as having written: “It’s a Christlike vision to have a fundamentalist Islamic state.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ied-report
BTW, the treasonous cunt was denied bail..
We don't. It's just a commandment that you don't stick unauthorized things in holesIbanez wrote:Wow. She's so screwed.BDKJMU wrote:"...A federal prosecutor said in court that authorities had uncovered a series of “new and downright frightening" other acts by Winner, including inserting a thumb drive into her Air Force computer and taking classified information while she was still in the military.
“When you take a thumb drive in a top-secret computer as she did, we don’t know what happened to it," U.S. Magistrate Judge Brian Epps said at the hearing. “That falls into the landscape of danger to the community but it is also a danger to the nation."...
...journal which federal agents found during a search of her Augusta home. She allegedly expressed support in her writings for Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden as well as proclaiming she wanted to burn down the White House.
“She seems to have a fascination with the Middle East and Islamic terrorism," Epps said. He quoted her as having written: “It’s a Christlike vision to have a fundamentalist Islamic state.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... ied-report
BTW, the treasonous cunt was denied bail..
Meanwhile...why isn't the Air Force blocking and/or monitoring removable media drives/ports?
The Navy does. My last project went as far as buying laptops w/o disk drives and then blocked the ports.CID1990 wrote:We don't. It's just a commandment that you don't stick unauthorized things in holesIbanez wrote: Wow. She's so screwed.
Meanwhile...why isn't the Air Force blocking and/or monitoring removable media drives/ports?
I agree with blocking the ports - after that army transtesticle committed its act of espionage i think we may be blocking the ports on the high sideIbanez wrote:The Navy does. My last project went as far as buying laptops w/o disk drives and then blocked the ports.CID1990 wrote:
We don't. It's just a commandment that you don't stick unauthorized things in holes
A little bit of security up front prevents so much embarrassment.
How much did thee cost? 12k per computerIbanez wrote:The Navy does. My last project went as far as buying laptops w/o disk drives and then blocked the ports.CID1990 wrote:
We don't. It's just a commandment that you don't stick unauthorized things in holes
A little bit of security up front prevents so much embarrassment.
More than thou art worth, kleanmrklean wrote:How much did thee cost? 12k per computerIbanez wrote: The Navy does. My last project went as far as buying laptops w/o disk drives and then blocked the ports.
A little bit of security up front prevents so much embarrassment.
No. You are buying a computer that LACKS a device. The cost would be lower.mrklean wrote:How much did thee cost? 12k per computerIbanez wrote: The Navy does. My last project went as far as buying laptops w/o disk drives and then blocked the ports.
A little bit of security up front prevents so much embarrassment.
Well the way the Navy used SCI is exactly what you just described. If it wasn't in your "compartment" you weren't allowed access to it.CID1990 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
SCI. That's the ticket. Really not that complicated.
No in fact that would be worse
Then everyone with SCI clearance would be able to look at ALL the SCI stuff.
Ironically, DOS has a system in place (and has had it since the teletype days) that could solve this. Every cable has specific tags and designators that indicate what lane it belongs in. If you arent in that lane, you dont get it.
i realize this would require the creation of literally thousands if not millions of designators, but this is the computer age and it needs to be done. It also would make it much easier to canary trap assholes who like to leak classified under the guise of "whistleblowing"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right-AZGrizFan wrote:Well the way the Navy used SCI is exactly what you just described. If it wasn't in your "compartment" you weren't allowed access to it.CID1990 wrote:
No in fact that would be worse
Then everyone with SCI clearance would be able to look at ALL the SCI stuff.
Ironically, DOS has a system in place (and has had it since the teletype days) that could solve this. Every cable has specific tags and designators that indicate what lane it belongs in. If you arent in that lane, you dont get it.
i realize this would require the creation of literally thousands if not millions of designators, but this is the computer age and it needs to be done. It also would make it much easier to canary trap assholes who like to leak classified under the guise of "whistleblowing"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk