Wikileaks ReleasesTrove of CIA Hacking Tools

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 01:12:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Wikileaks released a trove of documents about CIA hacking tools used to break into "smartphones, computers and even Internet-connected televisions."

What it means (according to Edward Snowden)"[it's the]first public evidence [of]USG secretly paying to keep US software unsafe."

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

...Why is this dangerous? Because until closed, any hacker can use the security hole the CIA left open to break into any iPhone in the world.

Although Wikileaks says Signal and WhatsApp were compromised, Snowden says the released documents show "iOS/Android are what got hacked - a much bigger problem." Others say if you're worried about being hacked, Signal is still the safest option.

Check out Sam Biddle at The Intercept, Wikileaks Dump shows CIA Could Turn Smart TVs into Listening Devices.

< Where Will ISIS Fighters Go If the Caliphate Fails? | Tuesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Wikileaks ReleasesTrove of CIA Hacking Tools | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Anybody (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 02:51:33 PM EST

ever wonder why Wikileaks never seems to have any hacked information from the Russians?

Because (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by smott on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:42:15 PM EST

It is a Russian propaganda machine


And Ed and his Bestie Glenn (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by smott on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:43:19 PM EST

Would not like you to know that


: Putin (none / 0) (#10)
by FlJoe on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:54:18 PM EST

wakes up every morning, smirks at himself in the mirror and says to himself "so many useful idiots, so little time".

Obviously (none / 0) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:22:35 PM EST

I can't even believe the media reports anything that comes out of Wikileaks. You think they would have learned.


i must be missing something... (none / 0) (#22)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:11:21 PM EST

because...

wikileaks, a site devoted to leaking information... leaked mildly embarrassing emails from the DNC servers.... THUS...

It is a Russian propaganda machine

really?


: Yes (none / 0) (#25)
by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:23:53 PM EST

Really. You can even check Wikipedia.
According to a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, "By dribbling these out every day WikiLeaks is proving they are nothing but a propaganda arm of the Kremlin with a political agenda doing Vladimir Putin's dirty work to help elect Donald Trump.
BTW - That's not all that Wikileaks did.

Because Assange (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:19:54 PM EST

Would be dead, and any other known Wiki associates.
And anyone who handed Wiki hacked Russian secrets would be dead as well.
Russians do not play nice or civilized, they play for keeps.
Manning and Snowden would both be dead if they did what they did to Russia


: Assange (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:24:02 PM EST

has no worries on that account. He's doing Putin's dirty work for him. Yeah, kind of funny how many people in that Steele dossier seem to have died isn't it?

How convenient -- for the Kremlin. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 03:01:03 PM EST

Are we to therefore assume at this point that Wikileaks has resumed its former role as an independent and honest broker, and is not still acting as a tool -- unwitting or otherwise -- of the Russian intelligence services?

I'm sorry, but given everything that's happened thus far and considering the present and rapidly destabilizing state of our national politics, I don't think so. Julian Assange & Co. sheared their last bolt of credibility a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned.

And Aspidistra, if Kim Dotcom really said that, then he is truly as big a fool and tool in this matter as both Assange and Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald. That anyone would still take the Russians' word as good at this point is asinine.

Admittedly, I've often looked at the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies with a grain of suspicion, but I've no reason at all to believe that they would act to subvert our country's own democratic institutions. Seriously, what would be the point?

This crackpot notion that the CIA and other related agencies would conspire to fake a Russian intelligence hack of Democratic Party information systems makes absolutely no sense, logically or otherwise.

And exactly where that sort of thinking runs aground on the misty shores of anti-U.S. lunacy is on the question of motive. That is, what in the world do we as a nation gain with a manifestly irresponsible man like Trump in the White House? Just look at the chaos and divisiveness that's since come to pass just in the first five weeks. Who benefits from any of this?

More to that point, what does Russian President Vladimir Putin potentially stand to gain with Trump in place in the Oval Office, and right-wing nationalism on the rise in places like Britain, France and Germany, aided and abetted by the Kremlin's material and financial support?

Putin seeks a termination of the West's ruinous economic sanctions regime that was imposed on his country, and a resumption of Western capital investment. And he wants a free hand militarily and politically in Ukraine, the Caucasus and likely elsewhere in eastern Europe, which requires the destabilization of both the NATO alliance and the European Union.

Now ask yourself, who's likely to deliver on that particular agenda - Donald Trump and right-wing nationalists, or the CIA?

Speaking for myself only. Aloha.

i dont understand (none / 0) (#19)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 07:47:23 PM EST

.acting as a tool -- unwitting or otherwise -- of the Russian intelligence services

why you feel wikileaks had an obligation to suppress documents that were mildly embarrasing to the American Democratic Party. do you feel wikileaks should operate on a rule to never embarrass foreign political parties?


Political parties are private organizations. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:24:54 PM EST

They are not public entities, even though they operate in the public realm. As such, any private internal communications, electronic or otherwise, between various party officials and members are considered both privileged and confidential, unless otherwise or later specified by the immediate parties.

And unless they themselves are conspiring to commit an unlawful act, people in these private organizations ought to be able to enjoy both the expectation and the right to talk and communicate freely amongst themselves, without fear of eavesdropping by an unauthorized third party.

Hacking somebody else's computer and server for the purpose of obtaining personal information is a federal crime. By publicly disclosing the contents of privileged communications without permission of the parties in question, WikiLeaks facilitated criminal conduct and thus made itself a party to that crime.

If you feel otherwise, well, that's both irrelevant and amoral on your part, given that you very likely wouldn't appreciate it at all, were the same thing done to you personally.

As the late Nobel laureate and humanitarian once observed, "The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself."

That is, we are guilty of adhering to a rather odious double standard, whenever we seek to deny to others the same rights and privileges which we would otherwise demand for ourselves.

If you expect your private communications with others to be kept in confidence, then you ought to grant to others the exact same courtesy.

Think about it.


"unlawful act" (none / 0) (#28)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:49:37 PM EST

as an argument doesnt go any where. every country that has national secrets exposed, even when those national secrets expose criminal endeavors, would consider those who exposed it to be commiting an unlawful act. also, i could be wrong but i dont believe wikileaks publishes private personal information like Gawker.

i do see your point of political parties vs. public entities and upon consideration agree with you. wikileaks should only publish official government documents.


"Could be"? Nope (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:58:04 PM EST

You are wrong. No idea what your "belief" is based on, but Wikileaks absolutely DOES publish private, personal information. This has been well published in numerous media outlets previously.

Also, there were no "criminal endeavors" being exposed by Wikileaks and its hacking of private emails, so your analogy "doesn't do anywhere".


Maybe not (none / 0) (#29)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:56:29 PM EST

http://tinyurl.com/hwp922k

I believe both Manning and Snowden stole documents that put informants lives in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Assange himself is under fire from gays in Saudi Arabia, dissidents in Turkey, and nonconformists elsewhere who complain that WikiLeaks' unredacted release of their names and personal information has exposed them to persecution from the very authorities that Assange claims to oppose.

: i agree it was best (none / 0) (#31)
by linea on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 09:15:31 PM EST

Meanwhile, Assange himself is under fire from gays in Saudi Arabia, dissidents in Turkey, and nonconformists elsewhere who complain that WikiLeaks' unredacted release of their names and personal information has exposed them to persecution from the very authorities that Assange claims to oppose

when wikileaks published materials after having then reviewed and redacted by their previous partner news sources (The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, et alia).
re: Manning and Snowden
i dont believe i have ever commented on either.

Unplug your TV set when not in use! (none / 0) (#1)
by Aspidistra on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 01:34:04 PM EST

That Intercept article was very good. Here is Kim Dotcom's take on this:

"CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state. It turns DNC/Russia hack allegation by CIA into a JOKE."

So (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by FlJoe on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 01:59:31 PM EST

the CIA hacked the DNC and Podesta in order to discredit Hillary, all while blaming the Russians. Now they turn around and are using the Russians to discredit tRump. Makes sense to me.


Sounds crazy... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by kdog on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 02:12:36 PM EST

but so did MK-Ultra and a slew of other maniacal and/or lame-brained plots originating outta Langley...I have no clue what to think anymore, but I'm cool with the CIA and our entire national security/intelligence cartel being disbanded and rebuilt, just in case. Sh*t maybe the plan was to discredit Democrats and Republicans in one fell swoop to pave the way for a coup de tat!


: I bet (none / 0) (#4)
by FlJoe on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 02:22:30 PM EST

it's Jill Stein and the Greenies behind it all.

Multiple actors have these tools (none / 0) (#17)
by Aspidistra on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:22:52 PM EST

It's more like, if the CIA has these tools and their security is such that we are looking at it, then it stands to reason that many other entities could have had access to these tools as well for a while. Apparently the files were created from 2013 through early 2016. The point is that anyone could have done the hacking of the DNC, not only the Russians.


Wondering... (none / 0) (#21)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:02:10 PM EST

Did the DNC ever let the FBI examine their servers?
last I recalled, they refused to let the FBI have access to their servers


Wondering (none / 0) (#23)
by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:14:28 PM EST

... why anyone cares. Was there something wrong with the Crowdstrike forensic analysis?


Seems odd (none / 0) (#24)
by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:22:15 PM EST

You claim you were hacked, and refuse to let the FBI look at the evidence

And I guess CrowdStrike is up on all those techniques described in the Wiki release


: The NSA (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 07:28:18 AM EST

is the one that pinned the hacking on the Russians. So obviously they got the evidence from somewhere. Will you ever quit spreading nonsense? I know focusing on DNC servers is attempting to not talk about the GOP and all their ties to Putin.

: Does it? (none / 0) (#27)
by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 08:43:27 PM EST

Well, then again ... almost sounds like an accusation, but you can't quite spit it out.
Oh, well. I guess we'll just have to ignore it, since it's only based on what you "recall", anyway. Personally, I recall the DNC saying the FBI never asked for access and was relying on a very good third party analysis by Crowdstrike. They do that sometimes. They also (for the benefit of those who are unaware) hire private investigators.

This leak makes us safer how? (none / 0) (#5)
by vicndabx on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 02:32:26 PM EST

Lets tell folks where to look for the vulnerabilities in our devices. The gall of this statement:

Because until closed, any hacker can use the security hole the CIA left open to break into any iPhone in the world.

That no one would've known about if you'd have kept your trap shut.

This leak was not designed to "make us (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Peter G on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 04:35:41 PM EST

safer." It was designed to cripple a form of government hacking and surveillance techniques that the folks behind Wikileaks find reprehensible.


But his comment indicates ... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 04:46:46 PM EST

... that he considers the folks behind WikiLeaks to BE reprehensible. And to be perfectly honest, I share that opinion.


And? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by kdog on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 04:58:01 PM EST

That makes the revelations less troubling?

No doubt Wiki has a bug up its bum about Uncle Sam, and for whatever reason ain't leaking Russia's dirty ...seems to me that's a loss for the Russian people more than anybody.


i think (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 05:07:59 PM EST

that is exactly the point


: Yes, I also am not seeing (none / 0) (#32)
by Towanda on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 12:19:37 AM EST

what about this is so hard for some here. . . .

Given that the CIA conducts its business ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 07:54:45 PM EST

... overseas and not domestically, it doesn't necessarily affect you -- unless, of course, you wind up doing business with a Russian oligarch and become the subject of a FISA warrant.

Further, you appear to be assuming the WikiLeaks is the actual hacker, rather than merely the conduit for such purloined data and information. If so, then you're looking at it bassackwards.

Look, kdog, as a student of history I'm under no illusions that espionage has long been a dirty and at time very nasty business, and yes, revelation of agency overreach such as Edward Snowden's do concern me.

But to be perfectly frank, I'm much more disturbed by the propensity of so many individual citizens to freely divulge with only a minimum of prompting their personal information to random corporate strangers via the internet; and by the corporate practice of retaining customers' personal data and histories in perpetuity, than I am about the NSA's data mining activities.

If we didn't so meekly acquiesce to corporate insistence that we give it up and they be allowed to keep, it as though it were theirs in the first place, there would likely be a lot less data to mine.

Per capita, we actually volunteer a lot more data and information as individuals about ourselves than we ever realize, and probably much more than the NSA is likely even interested in learning about us. So, if there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that we really ought to be much more discreet personally regarding what we disclose to people and corporate entities whom we otherwise we don't really know.

Aloha.


I cannot agree that it "does not affect" (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Peter G on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 01:14:15 PM EST

us domestically. As we learned from Snowden's NSA leaks, the government rationalizes extensive spying on Americans, at home and abroad, as "foreign intelligence gathering," based on very tenuous and distant connections to non-citizens and overseas contacts.


We've not heard one report of any citizen harmed (none / 0) (#35)
by vicndabx on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 02:37:39 PM EST

How am supposed to know the good judges from the bad? I would generally hold a judge in high esteem considering the role they play in our society. Shouldn't I trust them to exercise (or have exercised) good judgement? Decide these cases on the merits as is often stated here?

I understand some skepticism, but outright distrust of gov't just because it's gov't or because of some past bad actor is IMO, self destructive and not supportive of a functioning democracy.

I have a real problem with a foreign entity deciding what is/is not best for me w/o my consent.


What does this have to do (none / 0) (#36)
by Peter G on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 04:10:04 PM EST

with judges? We are talking about foreign intelligence surveillance techniques by the CIA. The CIA does not operate in the U.S. (supposedly). When other agencies conduct such investigations within the US, they are not conducted with FISA warrants, as we were discussing the other day. No one would know if they had been affected. Of course you haven't heard a report of any citizen harmed.


You made the point that techniques may be (none / 0) (#37)
by vicndabx on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 05:12:17 PM EST

used against Americans & you don't like the techniques. I understand that, apologies if I was unclear. My point is use of the techniques are at some point, reviewed by a FISA judge.

The supposed safeguard under the FAA is that the NSA annually submits a document setting forth its general procedures for how it decides on whom it can eavesdrop without a warrant. The Fisa court then approves those general procedures. And then the NSA is empowered to issue "directives" to telephone and internet companies to obtain the communications for whomever the NSA decides - with no external (i.e. outside the executive branch) oversight - complies with the guidelines it submitted to the court.

Guardian Link

That was the reference to judges I was making.


But this is CIA, not NSA (none / 0) (#38)
by Peter G on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 06:38:03 PM EST

So, I'm not sure any of those procedures apply at all. The US citizens affected would be, as it were, collateral damage.


Perhaps the confusion was my typo (none / 0) (#39)
by Peter G on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 06:52:42 PM EST

where I wrote, "When other agencies conduct such investigations within the US, they are not conducted with FISA warrants" but what I meant was "When other agencies conduct such investigations within the US, they are conducted with FISA warrants." Sorry if that was the problem.


: No worries sir (none / 0) (#40)
by vicndabx on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 07:26:55 PM EST

i agree (none / 0) (#41)
by linea on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 08:15:33 PM EST

with peter g

I cannot agree that it "does not affect" us domestically. As we learned from Snowden's NSA leaks, the government rationalizes extensive spying on Americans, at home and abroad, as "foreign intelligence gathering," based on very tenuous and distant connections to non-citizens and overseas contacts.

They swap intel (none / 0) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 02:05:52 AM EST

The U.K. Spies on all of us for them.


Coincidence? (none / 0) (#42)
by FlJoe on Thu Mar 09, 2017 at 01:34:03 PM EST

from dinner with tRump

Nigel Farage dined out with Donald Trump on Saturday night after managing to secure a last-minute invitation to join the US president for an evening meal.

to lunch with Assange ?

Nigel Farage Just Visited The Ecuadorian Embassy In London
Asked by BuzzFeed News if he'd been visiting Julian Assange, the former UKIP leader said he couldn't remember what he'd been doing in the building.

Farange has met multiple times with tRump and has reportedly earned his trust, and now he just "happens" to show up at Assange's lair three days after the latter dropped a high yield leak bomb.

This all reads like a very bad spy novel.