It's not just human sources. You don't want to reveal methods and capabilities. If you reveal a SIGINT capability than the notional "enemy" will change their TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures), and you have closed a potential source.
Additionally you wouldn't want a vulnerability to be open sourced until your own systems have been patched, otherwise you potentially expose your self to further attacks from multiple directions. I don't feel comfortable talking about anything operational or tactical. I still could be prosecuted. Let's keep things general :) On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > by the way, if you can comment on what sort of cybersecurity threat > might be classified I'd be interested. I would think that detection > usually happens at the hardware and software level, and that there > would not be the concern about protecting an informant or an agent > that you might have in other situations. Or, because of course I don't > actually know that, supposing there were such people, how pointing out > a threat would endanger them. Considering the state of network > security, I'd suspect that there's little point in worrying about > anything exotic enough to be identifiable until really basic problems > like default passwords are resolved.... > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Agreed. > > > > I mean, we were working China stuff when I was at OSAC (2002-2005), as > well > > as Pakistan, Lebanon, Brazil and others. We got by just fine on the > > available information from both open and classified sources (scrubbing > > classified intelligence for distribution to American companies operating > > abroad being part of OSACs primary mission). > > > > The major reason things are supposed to be classified is the fear of > > releasing information that will reveal sources and methods. This is a > very > > real concern. There are people out there on the sharp end gathering this > > information that do not have diplomatic covers to hide behind, and would > be > > very dead should they be discovered. > > > > Also, China has a very real impact on U.S. intellectual property and > > business in general. They copy everything and manufacture it without any > > royalties, often even beating import restrictions and tariffs. > > > > It's a tough situation, but I really don't thin that this bill is going > to > > help that situation, only further shred whatever privacy we as > individuals > > still retain. > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> the new NSA data center has everything to do with this. They will need > >> the capacity. > >> > >> This is not about China, though. > >> > >> D > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > He also said he'd veto the NDAA, and we see how that turned out. > >> > > >> > FISA, NDAA, NDRP, Patriot Act, it goes on and on with these people. > >> > > >> > I really hope that we as Americans can get our shit together and > change > >> > things electorally, but I don't see that happening. > >> > > >> > People are more interested in Dancing with the Stars and Jersey Shore. > >> > > >> > There is also a bill floating around to allow the IRS to deny you your > >> 2nd > >> > amendment rights, and your right to travel (through denying you a > >> passport) > >> > even when not convicted of anything. > >> > > >> > Plus the new NSA data center in Utah. > >> > > >> > Interesting times. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> thank you! that means a lot coming from you. > >> >> > >> >> I should add that Obama has threatened to veto this legislation if it > >> >> gets to his desk in its present form, but it will not get to his desk > >> >> in its present form. A whole bunch more amendments were just proposed > >> >> today so it's anybody's guess what the bill currently says. Note -- > >> >> none of the amendments address the "notwithstanding all other law" > >> >> language apparently, and according to CNET some of them make the bill > >> >> even worse. > >> >> > >> >> I almost feel like chicken little saying the sky is falling this soon > >> >> again after SOPA, but it really is bad stuff. If the intent is not to > >> >> impinge on privacy, why retain language that says it's ok to do so? > >> >> > >> >> Remember all that fuss over warrantless wiretaps a few years ago? > They > >> >> wouldn't have to worry about warrants any more. And the stated > >> >> rationale -- Chinese hackers -- would not be affected by the > >> >> provisions of this bill. > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Good article Dana, thanks. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Dana <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.fusionauthority.com/news/4841-threat-to-fourth-amendment-surfacing-in-congress.htm > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350252 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
