18 Burst results for "National Security Systems"

Intellectual-Property Assets Are Getting More Valuable

Intelligence Matters

37:14 min | 7 months ago

Intellectual-Property Assets Are Getting More Valuable

"As a foreign intelligence agency were responsible for understanding a broad range of threats. Presented by governments to the United States, one of those threats include our cyber threats how nations may be using cyber to achieve their national objectives that might be intellectual property theft for example, to counter department offensively valid by accelerating foreign governments ability to actually productized particular RDA for weapon that may be targetting critical infrastructure of a country. As part of threatening that country or as part of putting pressure on a given country. How are we doing against the cyber threats are we? Barely keeping up, are we catching up? Are we getting ahead of the game or? Is it always going to be hard for the defender. Overall technology is getting more secure. Technologies Belt more securely today. So. The fundamental resilience is is improving known. You have open source products. We have lots of is looking at a given technology and helping find vulnerabilities and address them. That being said for an ever-more connected economy in ever more connected society, and as we build more connections, sometimes systems that were not necessarily built for those kinds of connections we bring and introduce new risks on the third poll the positive side there's far more awareness about those risks and how to approach addressing them identifying what are the most important assets to protect. Seems to be an effort on the part of NSA to kind of open up a blackbox and Kinda shut the reputation no such agency we want to be trusted to achieve or we believe we can uniquely contribute to team USA on either the first step. Is conveying who we are conveying the culture. That's here the commitment to American values. Certainly. When a part of our mission is an intelligence mission in a democracy, you have an obligation to ensure that the Americans. We serve feel they understand the values by which we live. And neuberger is the current director of the national security. Agency's Cybersecurity Directorate. She has held a variety of jobs in both the public and private sectors. We just sat down with an to talk about her career, her and her director. It's multiple responsibilities and how she sees a cyber threats facing our country. I'm Michael Morale and this is intelligence matters. So an welcomed to intelligence matters, it is great to have you on the show. It's great to be here. So I think the place to start and is with your career before you joined the national security. Agency. You had a career in the private sector. Can you tell us about that and tell us what you did in the private sector and then what drew you into government, service. Sure. So I was in running technology at a at a financial services company during that time period when financial services companies really moved off mainframe environments to the Web. Decline server technology. So that piece of both taking an operations and emission and its associated technology and people and culture really Shaked shaped the way I approach a lot of those problems today. And I was raised in in a family where my dad came as a refugee all my grandparents came as refugees to the US and they just. Constantly instilled in US how grateful we should be for the opportunity to be born in America and raised in America, with its freedoms with its ability to pursue one's dreams and and that we owed it for that and. I was driving home from from work in. In two, thousand six, we just done a large acquisition of. Companies of banks, custodian operations. And on the radio, they were talking about the bombing of mosque. Samara Moscow in smaller rock and just the. Soldiers dying civilians dying and the troubles there and I I still don't know why but I thought of my dad and. That's myself. Perhaps now's the time to repay a little bit of of that in some way and. I've been a graduate student at Columbia had a I had a professor tell me about the White House fellows program and encouraged me to apply and I kind of I have to admit was a bit of the New Yorker Countless New York ever. kind of put that aside and for whatever reason I just felt that calling at that moment called him and said I'll apply and fast forward I was assigned to the Pentagon. With zero military background. And you learned a lot about the culture very drawn to that shared commitment and spent a year in the Pentagon worked for the navy and then came to NSA. Couple years later. What did they doing at the Pentagon and the Navy? So I was the deputy chief management officer, the Navy essentially, the Navy had a number of broad enterprise wide technology efforts which they were working again, bring that you people mission. Technology Triangle. And they asked me to help work on a couple of working directly for the secretary of the Navy figure out why a of them were struggling and then help them get on track. So I worked on that and I often get asked by people. How did YOU END UP AT NSA? A pretty funny story in that I had a seventy six year old and I was commuting from Baltimore and the. The work life balance was a bit tough and I met somebody and he asked me about. How he was doing and I commented that I really love the work but it was a little hard for me to do the juggle. And he said, you know I happen to know that NSA standing up you director NSA standing up cyber command and I know they need people with your kind of of background. So how about if I make a phone call there? And I went for an interview commute was thirty minutes and it sounds so foolish but. That was pretty much what it took. Interesting interesting. So the private sector and then the Department of Defence which is as you know this huge enterprise and then NSA and this is a this is not an easy question I know about kind of the similarities and differences of those three different experiences. It all begins with people. In every organization missions have to adapt and change They adopted change in the private sector because perhaps you have a competitor, perhaps the customer spaces adapted. Certainly financial services saw that we're the scale of data was just increasing the scale of trains was increasing and the traditional manual processes couldn't keep up. So we automation with needed to reduce errors and help us keep on track with we're trading was going. Technology could deliver on that, but the the business of the organization had to change to fully take advantage of the technology and the way people did that mission and use technology had to change along the way. So I think in each of those organizations that taught me that for that, that triangle has to be kind of guided together to get to an outcome mission technology and people if you really want to be able to fully. Whether it's take advantage of a market or stay ahead of an adversary in our own mission here in the ICU dod that triangle has to work together and you have to communicate every those three planes together when talking about why the changes needed. So an in your tenure at NSA, you've served as its first chief risk officer. The assistant deputy director of operations, the head of the Russia's small group, and now the head of the Cybersecurity Directorate. Can you take us through your trajectory there how did your responsibilities differ from roll to roll? Absolutely, and so I came into an Santa's small team part of a small team that was standing up cyber command, the chief risk officer role was. was created after the media leaks period of two, thousand, thirteen where we learned that. Really appreciating risk mount looking at in a holistic way across partnership risk operational. Risks Technology risks. We learned that we needed to adapt the way we looked at risk and then change according to that. So I think in each of those roles. Either, the adversary was changing around us a threat was changing around us. We. Wanted to take advantage fully of an opportunity and I was responsible for taking the big picture strategic goals, translating those two measurable outcomes and objectives and helping you know contribute, communicate the why and then bringing the team of people along to get their each other's efforts was a bit different. But you know. We talked about the risk of doing the risk of not doing weighing that appropriately we talked about the insuring that as we approached new missions policy and technology move together, and certainly when we looked at the elections work in two, thousand, eighteen, the Russia's small group work we saw we're adversaries of have used influence operation since the time of Adam and Eve perhaps would have changed was again the ability to use social media to both focus and directed to have larger impact. So focusing on the Russia's small group for just a second and what was that what was the what was the mission and what were your responsibilities with regard to the two thousand eighteen election's to the extent that you can talk about that. Absolutely. So the mission was ensuring the integrity of the two thousand eighteen midterm elections ensuring that we I understood the threat second that we appropriately tipped all the information we had about the threat to key partners across the US government. Certainly, FBI from a counter infants perspective digest from Cybersecurity of elections, infrastructure perspective, and they finally that we would support Cyber Command. If if authorized to impose costs, it's were attempts to disrupt. Disrupt the election. So. After the two thousand eighteen election's president trump publicly confirmed that cyber command played a role in deterring the Russians in two thousand eighteen are they're important lessons from what happened in two thousand eighteen about how we as a country can defend ourselves against this this insidious threat. Yes. So you know across the government, we look at two key polls. Integrity one is attempts to malignly influence population whether that is to highlight social discord to highlight issues that divide the population or to. Hand up sheer inappropriate. You know share information as part of shaping individuals ideas, and then the second is potentially interfering hacking into elections infrastructure as part of efforts to change the vote and I think the first pieces, the value of resiliency. The sense that you know once trust is lost, it's very hard to regain. So the knowledge for the American public that there are hundreds of people across the US government committed to and working to ensure the integrity of our elections. When it comes to counter influence though the biggest resilience as each of us. As Americans when we're reading something asking who might be trying to influence me what is the source of that information I fully confident in that source of that information. And then finally the role of the role of technology and the role of Public Private Partnership. In as part of elections integrity. So for us in the intelligence community were constantly watching for which adversaries maybe seeking to to shape a populations thinking to shape an election and then rapidly tipping that to partners or. To the private sector to ensure that they're both aware of techniques and our countering them on their platforms. So we've since learned shocked last week the updates from deny that the Russians continue to engage in election interference, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the punchline of all that for me is it's really hard to deter. Foreign interference right and I'm wondering if it's something special about foreign interference or if it's more about cyber at the end of the day and the difficulty of seeing cyber attributing it if you see it, how do you think about that question absolutely I think it is more about cyber than about elections from a cyber perspective when we look at fully both protecting cyber infrastructure and then to your second point about attribution, there's complexity laying what we call the red on top of the we may see threats. That are talked about strategic perspective and then we partners across the US government a looking to see where does that present itself? Where are the given vulnerabilities in a given infrastructure? The powers when you can lay the two together and say, here is a nation state that has intent to interfere in whatever that is an election critical infrastructure. I Pete Best and then translate that to the tactical level to say that network scanning or that vulnerability in hardware or software may well be used to achieve the objective putting that in place, and then most importantly preventing it because at the end of the day riding report about a victim and notifying the victim is far less satisfying than being able to put that together and prevent the adversary cheating their objective. So we've already started to shift now into your new role, right which was relaunched in October I believe. So be great if you could, and if you could explain for our listeners I, what NASA's two main missions are. Again and then cybersecurity and the difference between them just to give folks here level set absolutely. So Ns as a foreign intelligence agency were responsible for understanding a broad range of threats. Presented by governments to the United States, one of those threats include our cyber threats how nations may be using cyber to achieve their national objectives as that might be intellectual property theft for example, to counter the department defensively Thallady by accelerating foreign governments ability to to actually productized particular rnd for weapon that may be targetting critical infrastructure of a country. As part of threatening that country or as part of putting pressure on a given country. So that is the threat information on the second side. And say has cybersecurity mission. We're celestial known We build the keys codes and cryptography that's used to protect all of US government's most sensitive communications thinking nuclear command control weapon systems, the president's communications with allies, and we provide technical advice to mitigate those same threats that I talked about. So the really the he integration of the two missions where we think the magic is where we can say here's what we think adversaries are seeking to do, and here's how from a cybersecurity perspective we recommend you protect against. So so what motivated and the relaunch of the directorate and has its mission changed at all really good question. So we recognize that we were at a crossroads with national security as both technology and society ships were happening. We saw only kinds of technology that people want to from small satellites to Internet of things and each of those presents huge advancements. But they also present cybersecurity risk. Along with that, we saw various nation surtees. New Technologies think North Korean crypto currencies to get around sanctions to achieve their own objectives and we said we really need to up our game to more quickly be understanding those threats and ensuring that. We could both provide advice to build new technologies as early as possible, but also to counter adversaries use of those same technologies to achieve their national security. We're GONNA take a quick break to hear from our sponsor. Dumb. We'll be right back with more discussion with an neuberger. At Lockheed Martin, we're on a mission. Your mission. Not just the next mission but the one that's two steps ahead. That's why we've not only taken the lead in hyper sonics, but we're helping you integrate technology faster than. It's why we're not only developing the laser weapons systems you'll need but deploying them in the field. Our mission is to build the integrated solutions you can depend on because the world is depending on you. So and what are the what are the primary areas of Focus for your directorate? What kind of people work there? What's their skill set and what kind of customers do you serve? Questions. So the first parties. Operationalizing Intelligence. How do we ensure that from the intelligence that we see we took anything that's unique. And timely quickly so that we can prevent the victim. So that's the first, the first piece of of work, our areas of focus are. Both understanding that giving guidance encryption, we believe encryption. A key protection particularly in telecommunications environment that in many cases is entrusted. So both in building the government's special encryption, modernizing that as well as providing advice and insights on how to best use. Encryption the text of people who work cure are like we see him any organizations abroad gamut we have intelligence analyst. We have country-specific experts have a broad swath of technical experts, encryption network technologies, hardware, and software vulnerability analysts as well but the power is weird that can be integrated where you can say. How do you build on route of trust all the way through to an end point? Had you properly defend network and take a step back and do risk analysis to say? We are the gaps in your resilience and we're should your next dollar investment to closest gaps Right, and then what about customers is your is, is it just the Department of Defense? Is that the US government is even broader than that? How do you think about who it is you're working for? Yup Great Question. So there's a specific set work we do for what we call national security systems systems carrying classified information national security information the director. Vanessa is also the national manager for National Security Systems, that's the authority under which as I mentioned, we have we build the keys codes and cryptography responsible for distributing threat information as well. So those are across the US government with a particular focus on duty. Weapons Systems. And Related Systems. A second set of key partners and customers are dhs I. D. H., S. and its role supporting critical infrastructure. And, the sector specific agencies, and like I said the the real magic of understanding the critical infrastructure, we're it's key gaps and vulnerabilities are and being able to marry that up with what a foreign government may be intending to do and providing focused insight. Across the US government, there is broad use of commercial technologies, particularly duty and and national security system. So you may have seen when we're issuing advisories were also issuing advice on how to secure and configure those commercial technologies well because we see that. Those are used all across. Sensitive, systems as well. Your director has issued I think a dozen or so. Advisories about cybersecurity threats. Can you talk about why you guys do that? What the criteria is for quitting one of those out and then how do you think about the impact they have? Do You keep metrics on that? How do you think about? Advisories absolutely. So. Our advisories other way we really do them for three reasons. One is if we see a nation state actor using a particular vulnerability against the system care about we find that it really drives urgency of action people run faster when they're pursued, and if we can say, this nation state actor is using this vulnerability. Here's the mitigation advice to protect yourself against that we see impact and I'll talk about that how we measure that impact at the end. The second thing is there's a deep expertise here because we build and we break encryption. So encryption related technologies like the peons like you. You may recall the windows ten cryptographic vulnerability in January. Those are areas we focus on because we know those are sometimes hard to understand technically hard to implement. So if we can give very practical advice, them will issue those as well to help that be put in place, and then the third would be where there's a timely need and we're getting a lot of questions and we feel that putting out a product helps guide people and thinking about how to think about security I'll give an example. As. As covid. Pressed a lot of organizations across the US government particularly duty as well to move to telework. We started getting a lot of questions about secure collaboration. which commercial tools were safe to us and our goal was teaching people how to evaluate what safe to us. So we issued a product we're laid out the different attributes like. Code is available for review its end to end Krypton and a few other such attributes, and then we rated different secure collaboration publicly available tools against them and the cool part was we had companies call and say, well, you didn't get something quite right or can we be included as well and we said absolutely, we issued a second version and then we have another one coming out next week because our goal was making it as useful as possible and also helping teach people. How to assess. Different. Products for security. You ask the question about how we measure impact. So there's three different measures we've been using. The first is, do we see patch rates go up? They'll do we see for vulnerabilities that we've talked about here is a foreign actor might be using a boehner ability to achieve an objective. Can we watch those patriots go up and it was really cool to see. And a number of cases we've we've watched that increase. The second piece is there is a very capable and active cybersecurity industry has the information shared enable them to better protect. Sensitive US government national security systems networks, and you know in the case of the Xm vulnerability that we issued, we're advisory where we talked about the particular unit of Russian intelligence using the XML male vulnerability. It was really great to see five different cyber-security entities using that to identify other. Russian intelligence infrastructure and then take that down. So that was success for us that we made it harder for that adversary to achieve its objectives, and then the third one is really the feedback on the number of downloads and the feedback from administrators saying this was useful. This was unique timely and actionable could act on it, and then in May you guys took what I thought was an unprecedented step of actually openly attributing the exploitation of vulnerability to the Russian, Gru. and. That seemed to rare to me and I'm wondering why you decided to actually name Russia in this instance. So I it is rare because as you noted earlier, implicitly attributions hard. You may have seen a prior product where we highlighted one st state using another country's. Infrastructure to achieve its objective and then highlight he just hard attribution is. So when it's done, it needs to be done with precision to be confident. In that and we chose to do it because. We see that it makes targeted network owners more quickly patch and secure and build the resilience of their systems network administrators have way more vulnerabilities to address than they have time for or frankly money for and way more alerts than they can act on. So we can say this particular vulnerability is being used by a nation State Intelligence Service. We see them we see network administrators moving quickly and addressing it, and that's a fundamental goal. Fundamental goal is improving cybersecurity. If you kind of step back and look at look at the big picture here, you know, maybe from a thirty five thousand foot level how are we doing? The cyber threats are we barely keeping up? Are we catching up? Are we getting ahead of the game or? Is it always going to be hard for the defender. In this game in because the guy on the offense can always come up come up with something new how you think about sort of where we are in the history of of the threat of cyber and defense against it. I think we points overall technology is getting more secure. Technologies built more securely today. So the fundamental resilience is is improving you know when you have open source products, we have lots of is looking at a given technology and helping find vulnerabilities and address them. That being said were an ever more connected economy in an ever-more connected society, and as we build more connections, sometimes two systems that were not necessarily built for those kinds of connections. Data Systems. In that way, we bring and introduce new risks. On the third poll on the positive side, there's far more awareness about those risks and how to approach addressing them identifying what are the most important assets to protect and ensuring good practices are in place and it's far easier than ever to put that in place. So I think it's a mixed story on the one hand more more technologies built more securely, and there are communities of individuals working together to ensure their secure on the other hand far more. Technology some of which. Is connected in ways that bring risk in ways that we always have to and I guess the third part, which is where we started adversary seeking to take advantage of those risks to achieve their objectives. So. If you if you were standing in front of a large multinationals board of directors in you're talking to them about cybersecurity. What's the one or two things that you would absolutely want them to take away from from your conversation? What is the tangible thing you most want to protect and what's the intangible thank you most want to protect. So if you're drug company, what is the intellectual property that's going to be your next potentially big drug big driver of economic growth, big driver of healing, and then second what's the biggest intangible? Thank perhaps, that's your reputation. The way you treat your employees, the price, the prices that you charge and what you're, what you're. How much you mark that up. Make sure that you're protecting both carefully make your your cyber security commensurate with with the risk presented to you if you lose either one. And you mentioned you mentioned Skater Systems and I'm not sure that all my listeners know what those are just explain that and then is there something? Is there something special about protecting data system from protecting? Normal network absolutely. So Skater Systems are essentially control systems for the core areas of infrastructure in a given country in a given company. So think power systems clean water drug manufacturing. and. Those are. Those are often complex system. So what's unique about them is you know those systems over the years were often built four reliability in the event of a bad storm that power system would come back online with confidence as. More technologies got connected. So for example, the ability to measure. Use of power the ability to measure confidence in in water and chemical level. Some of those systems got connected to network systems that provide a way to access them. One of the joint products we recently issued between Ns. WAS An ICS product because there had been some public articles about. a given attack against skater systems in the Middle East, and we wanted to ensure that we together with. One of our closest partners was providing technical advice to. Skate entities in the US based on what we were learning about those attacks. So interest, a couple more questions you've been terrific with your time. Seems to be an effort on the part of an essay to kind of open up the black box and showed the reputation no such agency right. Your conversation with me thinking example of that why is that a priority for for the agency and for General Nakasone? I in the cybersecurity mission fundamentally if we're not trusted we can't achieve our intact. People take advice from those they trust and the power of. Across the US Government Team USA work cyber. There each organization plays its position within that role. You Know My counterpart at Digest Chris Crabs often talks about them being the national risk managers. At an essay, we believe what we can bring uniquely is that integration of intelligence series of seeking to do what their capabilities are, what their infrastructure looks like and how to defend against cyber security advice to counter that, and that's always continuing because technologies change adversaries, goals change, and the resilient always has to be increased to meet that. So we want to be trusted to achieve what we believe. We can uniquely contribute to team USA on cyber. The first step to doing that is conveying, we are conveying the culture that's here the commitment to American values, and certainly WanNa part of our mission is an intelligence mission. In a in a democracy, we have an obligation to ensure that the Americans we serve. Feel they understand the values which we live. So your your former colleague and my really good friend Glenn Gerstl road. Op Ed about a year ago about what he saw the. Profound implications of the Digital Revolution on national security, and he raised a lot of concerns and among those was the sheer pace and scale and volume of technological change and. And data that's GONNA force intelligence agencies including NSA to fundamentally change how they do business I was GonNa say thinking big picture about those kinds of challenges. What are you trying to tackle I? Would've the adjustments look like, how do you? How do you think about the challenge that Glenn laid out? Absolutely, so I from the perspective of large amounts of data and ensuring, we can make sense of them. Ensuring that we can do big data analysis to help. Triage the information we identify and determine what are people are big assets put their time on to determine he's and how to act on them. So for example. We we're looking at machine learning to classify malware and we're certainly looking at. Machine learning potentially to help us identify vulnerabilities scale particularly when we look at systems that represent thirty years of technology like muffins systems, how do you secure a weapon system? That's been out there and represent each phase of technology and have confidence in its resilience and in command and control. And then finally. We have an obligation to both bring those technologies to be on our mission and understand how adversaries might use that and manage that accordingly. So for example, as we think about artificial intelligence and the potential to automatically. Direct weapon. In the United States we have strong values around how we would think about automation versus human control. In other countries around the world, there might be different ways that those kinds of decisions are approached. So how do we ensure that we both? Bring that integration of. Compliance and technology to the way we pursue it but also be aware of those gaps and keep an eye on the risks of those gaps. And you mentioned you mentioned people and you mentioned people a couple of times and and just took two questions about that. One is given the competition that you face with all of these cyber security firms and. Your folks must be very attractive to them, and their skills are quite valuable in their private sector. How how difficult is it for you to recruit and retain talent? Really thoughtful question because you asked two questions in their recruit entertained. So. From the recruit side, we get really great people. On the routine side. We have a really compelling mission. and. What brings keeps people. Here is the sense that they're contributing to something bigger than themselves. That is challenging fulfilling. It's on us as organizational leaders to ensure that each person has that opportunity to contribute what they can uniquely bring chew to that mission. And one of the one of the cool aspects of the Cybersecurity standup has been people who have left to call in and say, Hey, I'd like to come back I learned a lot. In the private sector, the missions, calling me and like to contribute again, and we've hired a number of them back and continuing to increase that and part of the message we have when people if people do decide to leave is to say that is great. You will continue to contribute to the nation's security. You'll learn a lot in the five at sector, and if you ever want to come back the doors open. What do you? What do you want the American people to know about the women and men who work for you. That, they're committed to the values. That this country was established for. That there are significant threats to the United States, our allies and to those values, and that not always can we talk about those threats because? By impact sometimes intelligence community, even the security mission has to operate in those shad in the show does so. Trust our values, trust that we are proud Americans. We swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States, and if you do question it or if you want to learn more roll up your sleeves and come into the for a few years and get to know what yourself because each person has unique abilities and a unique ability to contribute to their to their country in whatever way they choose whether that's government are in the private sector. But if you ever doubt it come on in and work here and and raise your voice and be a part of it. It sort of takes you back to what your parents taught you to. It really does it my dad grew up in in communist Hungary and In the beginning when I came into government, he would call me on the phone sometimes and switched to a foreign language and. I realized that for him growing up in another country. Is that complete trust of government that I American born? You know have that doesn't mean it's trust and verify it's from verify but there are things that I take for granted growing up in this society that I don't know if he ever will. So being able to look at things through his eyes and through mind make me realize how fortunate we are to be here and how much we have obligation to. To ensure it stays that way. And thank you so much for joining us and thank you for your service. Thank you so much for your time.

United States Director NSA Cybersecurity Directorate Russia USA Theft National Security Systems New Technologies President Trump Navy Michael Morale Neuberger FBI Pete Best Nasa Department Of Defense Lockheed Martin Chief Risk Officer
"national security systems" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

KLBJ 590AM

01:51 min | 7 months ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

"Felony warrants against 42 people for last weekend's looting spree, the police Superintendent David Brown, warning against further attempts. We are going to the point all tactics necessary to prevent stop looting. There have been calls for Prosecutor Kim Fox's resignation for failing to prosecute people arrested during earlier violent protests. And two people are facing charges for setting in New York City police vehicle on fire Protesters Corey Smith and Elaine Carberry are facing arson and arson conspiracy charges they could face up to 20 years behind bars. Investigators say the pair were caught on surveillance video setting fire to a police homeless outreach fan in the early morning hours on July 15th. Smith and Carberry were tracked down in Brooklyn after an informant identified them amid ongoing protests. Several police vehicles have been torched in several major cities during the unrest following the death of George Floyd. Tom Graham. Fox News U. S intelligence agencies explosion exposing a Russian hacking tool they compare to a digital Swiss Army knife, National Security Agency and FBI are providing a rare glimpse behind the cyber couldn't Putting a Russian hacking tool on full display. The tool is code named Drove, Oh rub, and they say it's got the potential to cause widespread havoc across US systems. Russia's notorious G R U the government's intelligence hub designed the tool in order to break directly into defense and national security systems, but cyber sources fear it could be deployed even more widely and may have already been used in the run up to 2020 Democrat lawmakers say interference is already well on Airway. But President Trump's national security team insists they're doubling down on efforts to defend against attacks.

Elaine Carberry Corey Smith arson Superintendent David Brown Kim Fox George Floyd National Security Agency President Trump Prosecutor US Tom Graham New York City Russia Brooklyn Swiss Army FBI U. S
"national security systems" Discussed on News Radio 920 AM

News Radio 920 AM

01:51 min | 7 months ago

"national security systems" Discussed on News Radio 920 AM

"Prosecutors in Chicago filing felony warrants against 42 people for last weekend's looting spree, the police Superintendent David Brown, warning against further attempts. We are going to allow tactics necessary to stop looting, there have been calls for process. Her Kim Fox's resignation for failing to prosecute people arrested during earlier violent protests and two people are facing charges for setting in New York City Police vehicle on fire Protesters Corey Smith and Elaine Carberry are facing arson and arson conspiracy charges they could face up to 20 years behind bars. Investigators say the pair were caught on surveillance video setting fire to a police homeless outreach fan in the early morning hours on July 15th. Smith and Carberry were tracked down in Brooklyn after an informant identified them amid ongoing protests. Several police vehicles have been torched in several major cities during the unrest following the death of George Floyd. Tom Graham. Fox News U. S intelligence agencies explosion exposing a Russian hacking tool they compared to a digital Swiss army knife, National Security Agency and FBI are providing a rare glimpse behind the cyber curtain. Putting a Russian hacking tool on full display. The tool is code named drove over rub, and they say it's got the potential to cause widespread havoc across US systems. Russia's notorious G R U the government's intelligence hub designed the tool in order to break directly into defense and national security systems, but cyber sources fear it could be deployed even more widely and may have already been used in the run up to 2020 Democrat lawmakers say interference is already well on Airway, But President Trump's National security team insists they're doubling down on efforts to defend.

Elaine Carberry Corey Smith arson Superintendent David Brown Kim Fox National Security Agency Chicago George Floyd President Trump US Tom Graham New York City Brooklyn Russia FBI U. S
"national security systems" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

03:52 min | 2 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"I mean, that's that chilling effect that potential chilling effect we were talking about before, and I think in terms of a practical outcome from this, that is the most worrisome. One people like John Brennan. John Brennan is going to be okay to Sean his point. He has a network contract. Act, you know, he has a huge platform right now. A lot of these folks who have left the government are doing just fine. It's the people who are in the administration right now who are in non-political jobs, but are in position to have to send information to the White House to be briefing top officials. That's where I think you could have a chilling effect. That's where I think you're going to see the most concern, you know, potentially from Republicans because that would just reshape the whole way that our national security systems work, you're supposed to be able to have a free flow of dialogue. You're supposed to have people in these jobs who are non-political who are just presenting the best most accurate intelligence information that this government has. And if you have people who feel like they're no longer able to do that, that their careers will be at risk, both their current career and then their potential career after leaving the administration. The effect of that, I think could be quite devastating. It remains to be seen whether Trump will follow through on that. Sometimes what he does is throw out additional names. For for the sake of drama, leaving people in anticipation of whether he will or won't do something. But certainly even the fact that he's considering it or says, he's considering it, I think, is quite concerning to people who are currently in the administration. Let's get a couple more calls on this issue of national security in the president of the United States. Reggie is calling from Oskaloosa Iowa. You're on the air Reggie. I wanted to say a, keep hearing people talk about losing your security clearance takes away freedom of speech. I've had a military secret security clearance twice because it's easy to get them reinstated, but in no way affects your freedom of speech. It affects the information, give it to you, not the formation. You can say, you're gonna have to lose your security clients information. You know, you can't say. And as I say, when Brennan came into office or. He wanted through and wanted to remove many security clearances, and the press never said a single word it now that Trump's doing it because the press doesn't like him, it's a huge story. If this is the other way around, no one would ever hear about it. No one would care. It would be a big deal Reggie. Thank you so much for your call. Let's go to Keith, who's calling from gate city, Virginia, you're on the air, Keith. Thank you for taking my call. You know, I'm, I'm so amazed at the people who are still defending Donald Trump. I don't understand that they're attacking our intelligence community and they're not looking overseas to see who's controlling Donald Trump, rot from the Kremlin and it amazes me that that Americans are so blind. We're blaming the messenger instead of going against it at the person who in and he's, he's, he's out writing. I didn't vote for the first time. I read about him making fun of a handicapped reporter. The man has no, you're in and I'm just so disturbed. I'm reading John McCain's book and and he lays out in their in Manny, Manny pages that who is not a friend. Keep. If you don't mind interrupting a minute, take it back from you there, and I thank you so much for your call because Julie shown Michael Keith is actually given us the perfect way to segue into lots of the other news that we had over the weekend plus what may be coming up this week. You know, things like the ongoing Muller investigation. Paul manafort's trial wanna talk about all that..

Donald Trump John Brennan Reggie Michael Keith John McCain Paul manafort Sean White House Oskaloosa United States Manny Muller Iowa president Julie Virginia reporter
"national security systems" Discussed on Risky Business

Risky Business

02:02 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on Risky Business

"What level of granularity do we want to be able to track the supply chain of electronics and computer devices that are being used in the federal government we wanna be able to figure out the supply chain of every tv camera that's used on a federal network do we wanna know where the parts of the president's iphone were made or is there some other sort of calculus that we want to be doing in regards to sort of locating the sources of all of the component tree and the computers were using i think what we tried to stress it really depends on the level of concern that level of consequence that's going to be that's going to occur because of that product or service that you're buying so if i'm looking at commercial technology and before you mentioned dell's of the world and hp i'm not as concerned about their six tier supplier as long as i've been able to articulate to hp or dell these are my security concerns their job is to mitigate that through the tears that is their job that's how they stay innovative that's how they get the purchasing power that they have on the other hand if i'm buying something very specific that's created for critical infrastructure or national security systems and i wanna pay the additional cost that it will definitely drive into the market to control that then it's worth it but it's really understanding the level of rigor of risk management and it needs to be applied and that needs to be commensurate based on how much time and money you're willing to spend based on that consequence at the end of the day do we really understand our exposure in terms of the supply chain our answer is no in many cases and that's exactly why this report has has really gotten everybody's attention because we're bringing up things that shouldn't be a surprise and before this before we started taping this conversation we talked about what happened at facebook a lot of these things shouldn't be a surprise people weren't paying attention to before and this comes under the title of supply chain risk management and i can tell you again of being in the industry for so long it doesn't come across a very exciting topic but when you realize that this is all about the business relationships.

president dell facebook hp
"national security systems" Discussed on KBNP AM 1410

KBNP AM 1410

01:30 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KBNP AM 1410

"Channel explaining how given these recent revelations we just find that instead of trump being carted off the authorities it could very well be the democrats but derek i clip five followed by clip one with geraldo rivera thank you i was talking to a few members of congress today and these are people who you know don't follow this closely they're not on the house intelligence committee but they follow it just by the news and they were shocked they were shocked matter of fact they used a few expletives because they couldn't believe that the white house the obama white house was being briefed by the fbi on an investigation into the trump campaign they couldn't believe it and i think that's the that's the reaction you're going to get from most members of congress that the care about this issues at least the republicans now it's being revealed that this noble i you know this this monument to fairness and the integrity of our national security system the pfizer courts it's it's not that they did anything wrong it's that the information they were given was polluted by politics and i think that this will end up in a very interesting place they think that you may indeed find a kind of collusion that nobody ever expected trump walks in the and the dnc and some of the others get gets stung by their own corruption john hayward joins us right now all part of the show staff writer with breitbart news also former senior writer for human events as well as all through the highly praised book entitled dr zero year one.

geraldo rivera congress fbi john hayward staff writer writer obama dnc breitbart zero year
"national security systems" Discussed on Le Show

Le Show

02:03 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on Le Show

"Continued using unsupported operation systems blake i guess windows ten failed the patch critical vulnerabilities quickly no what's the rush fell to monitor software licenses an unclassified systems at didn't plan well enough for recovery from service tips disruption the department of homeland security we're talking about liz jaylen didn't plan wellenough 64 systems back the authority to operate based on government security psyche criteria of these sixteen were classified national security systems 48 were unclassified this is an improvement over the previous year when seventy nine unclassified systems were deemed insufficiently protected the foremost reason that the department of homeland security failed to meet its security goals according to the report lack of security talent i don't know where they're gone these security people but they're not going to the department of homeland security news of inspectors general so glad there there and now the apologies of the week so so what's that sound it's the sound of alexa laughing for the past few days users with alexa enabled devices this is this little speaker that amazon makes that sits in your house and listens to you and talks to you the alexa devices have reported the users with alexa devices have reported hearing strange unprompted laughter amazon responded in a statement sankt we're aware of this and are working to fix it alexa laughs without being prompted to wake up alexa don't laugh people on twitter and read it reported that they thought it was an actual person laughing near the many responded to the cackling sounds by unplugging their alexa unable devices that to start then there's the trash.

liz jaylen amazon twitter department of homeland alexa
"national security systems" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

02:19 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"Not academic we're not talking about a theoretical problem here tonight we're talking about something that actually happen so this is a proven credible threat we would never by the way accept this level vulnerability in any of our other key national security systems think about our nuclear capabilities we would this week we would be outraged if they were as vulnerable as our election system just proved to be or are command could all systems or even our personnel systems are personnel security systems and yet we haven't quite yet awaken to the vulnerability of our elections since the second reason this is a national security threat is that russia's not going away look in also in march illinois holds primaries or russia holds national presidential elections is this is not very suspenseful we know putin is going to win he will go from 2018 for another sixyear term he is not going away even if he had a unfortunate physical accident in one of his heroic outdoorsman performances on horseback or hunting tigers whatever he does industry talk okay that leader who replaces vladimir putin because of the nature of the russian state will be very much light fled under putin and we'll have to be like that in order to stay atop this steadily declining state structure we will have an autocrat in russia for the foreseeable future probably the rest of our lives so russia is not going away i think the attacks in 2016 could be characterized this probing attacks there were actually in some ways quite clumsy and elementary there were kinda sophomoric but one thing about russia they learn he will have taken lessons from 2016 and you'll come back at us because he's not going away in 2018 to 2020 when he does come back they will not be as clumsy there'll be more targeted and more sophisticated so not going away third others watching this isn't as though we have only one potential opponent here in vladimir putin and russia are wron north korea china of this socalled islamic state all have cyber potential and quite frankly our election system proved.

russia vladimir putin illinois north korea sixyear
"national security systems" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

Anderson Cooper 360

01:53 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

"Defied that someone was a target i mean this is stuff that is not supposed to get released and it was so i get the pie get the politics but more harm would probably be been been done according to the fbi if this 10page version were released uh i want bring to the conversation van jones also in scott jennings van oh boo hoo in this letter from rod rosenstein essentially says look the democrats can rewrite this with help from the fbi when people talk about uh you know went once the kind of fbi in the national security system ways in which wrong with that first of all a short lie sometimes requires a long rebuttal the problem we have is the first memo should never come out in the first place it had all kind of of uh innuendo a created a sense of um real unease and suspicion over uh the fbi it was a couple of pages you can do a lot of damage and a couple of pages the idea that now you wanna be able to respond in you can't you're moving in the direction of a oneparty state that's the problem is that we have right now oneparty rule in uh washington dc the republicans control everything but we will always had the idea that even so the minority had certain rights minority had certain privileges because tomorrow you might be in the minority so the sense of this back and forth that has now been flushed down the toilet and what's left now hanging out there are some of the worst allegations against the fbi that their corrupt at the top and that at and stuff was put out there over the objections of of our national security community this is a very dangerous moment i'm not linespeople people runs around my here on fire every day about every tweet about every little thing or whatever i try to give these guys a lot of room because honestly i just don't have the emotional fortitude to be this upset every day.

van jones rod rosenstein fbi
"national security systems" Discussed on Security Now

Security Now

02:02 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on Security Now

"A encryption which would allow what's known as opportunistic encryption meaning that if you are if you have wpa three at each end and that'll take some length of time for access points to come up to speed for example in coffee shops and so forth them and restaurants and airports but the idea would be that no longer would your would your non password based wi fi connections be subject to simple eat dropping and that's a great step forward so again if they didn't screw it up in implementation and definition then yesterday that would be good and finally they say a one hundred and ninety two bit security sweet i guess for whatever reason probably performance maybe they're not wanted to jump all the way to 56 where everybody else is but there you know it's better than one 28 so there said that that's aligned with the national big commercial national security algorithm sweet from that committee on national security systems and i don't know who eddie lewis people are that we never talked about their of worthy cnsa whoops scott nsa in his name well okay will further protect wifi networks with their saying with higher security requirements such as government defence at industrial and maybe this fifth shot would will be better than the previous four let's hope um so anyway they've got their trademark all over everthing um through a wpa three announced yesterday at ces will happened apparently sometime this year and sounds like it's got some good new features so good for that i do all my only wish is that it were being developed the way i mean the way other open systems are where.

wi wifi eddie lewis ninety two bit
"national security systems" Discussed on WTMA

WTMA

02:28 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on WTMA

"To jail for that and we found out you know they subpoenaed his his uh his laptop and that's what we found a lot of this information from whom but does it isn't a scott i i still stand by charges have been brought against these people she not only was he uh the you know had classified documents on this laptops she had passwords to national security systems on charlie of absa fideco uh carpet into uh our governments are higher levels of security yeah uh you know if i can't remember we gave its homeless given uh immunity or not but when you do get immunity you have to tell the truth and you know rouphael everything run otherwise you're a community can be invalidated but um it's just the fbi and politics let us down charlie and i just wanted to say i'm club the new york city police department cat got caught this yeah exactly right appreciate scotland scabby very very careful out there today uh yeah again uh b why didn't he asked the i catch this why didn't the cia catch this why wasn't as caught buyer are you know the best uh police organization in the entire world why didn't they catch all of this this this whole thing just stinks from the get go i mean the guy that houma was sending passwords to the guide is suspected of hacking all of yahoos emails every single one of them does the same guy who worked for the bank that gave bill clinton a five hundred thousand dollars speaking fee in moscow i die and and and everybody wants to talk about collusion with the russians as far as the trump campaign is concerned why don't we have a special investigator into this we might get one we'll talk about that a little bit more josh martyrs going to be tired calling in and just a couple of minutes keep his updated on the weather conditions that are going on today it 745 at the big talker to a fifty wta listen to the big soccer on alexa alexa unable wtma skill than two players se alexa play wtma mrs clark howard over and over again you here you get what you pay for and one industry that has had a history of convincing you that paying much more for a brand name is a great idea television industry getting you to buy your particular high prestige brand.

fbi charlie houma investigator soccer new york city police departmen scotland cia bill clinton moscow josh alexa alexa mrs clark howard five hundred thousand dollars
"national security systems" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:26 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Fellow at the johns hopkins center for advance governmental studies is books include orchestrating the instruments of power a critical examination of the us national security system he joins us from kansas city welcome hello how're you i'm well thank you after the failure of the articles of confederation the framers realize they needed a powerful chief executive but the last thing they wanted was a king how did they solve that apparent contradiction particularly in regard to the power to declare and conduct war well if you go back and read the federer was papers and madison's notes in madison's letters to jefferson it hinges on one word declare the draft version allowed the congress to make war the big debate over that and was changed to declare him in the meaning is in context of the times the cleric meant to initiate and the reason they had that debate between make and declare was that they wanted the president to be able to respond to repel an invasion if someone attacked us they initiated the war and the president had the authority straight from the constitution to repel that invasion but all other cases offense of uses force remained in article one clearly assigned to the legislature you've written that every president b ginning with george washington has gathered more power in this regard abraham lincoln and franklin roosevelt in particular about that the first president to ignore the constitution on more powers was harry truman he of course went to the united nations to authorise what he called a police action in korea why did he bypass congress and why did they put up with it why is a tricky question i'm going to guess that when he inherited office or an awful lot of folks who did not have confidence in harry truman's abilities and he was very much aware of that and that going to congress and asking for a thority to respond just bothered him greatly but there was no precedent for what he did united states drafted a un resolution and took the at a an and had that approved truman did not go to congress and ask for authorities to use force he never received authority use force he claimed was under the un resolution but the un charter's very clear on that it all of.

johns hopkins center chief executive federer madison congress president george washington franklin roosevelt harry truman united nations korea united states kansas jefferson abraham lincoln
"national security systems" Discussed on KOMO

KOMO

01:48 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KOMO

"President stands for that i think we have to put all of ourselves below that agenda that that agenda supersedes everybody i'm your pretty loyal to the president even call eight election now i talk i talked to the president this week we had a you know we had a very candid conversation uh you know listen there's by mutual disappointment on both sides again i have to be accountable for what i did and i am telling you deserve to be fired for that too i think i deserve to be fired obviously i wish they would give me a bar sobeih told me to wash my mouth out in the in the bathroom and move on i don't i don't necessarily think you it's going to be very hard for me to stay in the job given the fact that general kelly took over and so i respect general kelly and so my feeling about the whole thing is that what happened was sort of meant to have a couple of specific things that phone call i wanna follow up on you talked about those digital fingerprints god from the fbi and the dea that was because that was totally misconstrued and as you make no no all i was all i was trying to say is that in the process and i think attorney general sessions and said this is that and he he also displayed that his press briefing is that over time if the leaking continued particularly leaking that was the agenda the heavens digital fingerprints of no no no no i was just implying that at some point the department of justice would be able to figure out who the leakers or inside the national security system that are actually doing things that are against the law that received anything because that would have known elanie person gave it to you no no no i didn't receive anything now we were again i thought that was an off the record conversation with somebody it it it turned out that it was in i own it and let's move on you also in that phone compasses talked about vice president pence and you were asked about is bringing in this political operative nick heirs to run his operation and you told ryan listen.

President kelly fbi attorney department of justice vice president nick ryan
"national security systems" Discussed on KOMO

KOMO

01:48 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KOMO

"President's stance for that i think we have to put all of ourselves up below that agenda that that agenda supersedes everybody i'm your pretty loyal to the president even call you to legend now i talk i talked to the president this week we had a you know we had a very candid conversation uh you know listen there's by mutual disappointment on both sides again i have to be accountable for what i did and and i am seizing you deserve to be fired for that too i think i deserve to be fired obviously i wish they would give me a bar so been told me to wash my mouth out in the in the bathroom and move on i don't i don't necessarily think it's going to be very hard for me stay in the job given the fact that general kelly took over and so i respect general kelly and so my feeling about the whole thing is that what happened was sort of meant to have a couple of specific things that phone call i wanna follow up on talked about this digital fingerprints from the fbi and the dea because that was totally misconstrued and as you make no no all i was all i was trying to say is that in the process think attorney general sessions said this is that and he he also displayed that his press briefing is that over time if the leaking continued particularly leaking that was again did have any digital fingerprints of no no no no i was just implying that at some point the department of justice would be able to figure out who the leakers or inside the national security system that are actually doing things that are against the law who had received anything because that would have known elanie from the person who gave it to you no no no i didn't receive anything now we were again i thought that was in off the record conversation with somebody it it it turned out that it wasn't i own it and let's move on you also in that phone conversation talked about vice president pence and you were asked about is bringing in this political operate nick heirs to run his operation and you told ryan listen.

President kelly fbi dea attorney department of justice vice president ryan
"national security systems" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:21 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Mind the president wondering what troubles you more the prospect of donald trump succeeding as president or the fact that the there was a sort of a silent coup going on within the intelligence and military community while well i certainly not feeling any interest in seeing him succeed in his immigration policy or if this is evident racism misogyny sexism of bigotry in general i am really although it's in the ordinary run of politics especially republican politics but not only republican are not really interested in his version of tax reform which is enormous benefits for the top one point one percent or zero point one percentage from say and his climate policy slow one and succeeded in rolling back over it relations it'll no no i would like to see him block can failed in resistance at every point there there is i'm in a very ironic position actually on the issue you raise because first of all i agree with it definitely where there's a question of lying to the public for example he said there there has of the no significant con contact between his admission his party people and russian intelligence let's say during the campaign and frames attitude apparently panic was line to the vice president which has not by the way all that unusual willing to question the big secrecy apparently pence was not in the loop on this particular question and that involves lying to them probably with the president's okay what is the motive in this particular case by the way in in terms that i agree with that of getting a contradicting presidential or the national security systems lifelessly especially on matters worthy of uh the people feel that national security is being strongly undermine we're not talking now about the treatment on relations with russia this is an odd case i was very very much against a seen trump elected in this campaign but does the trouble you that these people would go in this i want to say in this particular there's one policy on which i found hillary home clinton whom i strongly prefer to.

donald trump vice president russia clinton hillary one percent
"national security systems" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:31 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KQED Radio

"National security systems live with especially on matters worthy of uh the people feel if national security has been strongly undermine we're not talking now about the for treatment on relations with the russian this is an odd case i was very very much against a shame trump elected in this campaign but does the trouble you that these people would be done in this i want to in this particular there's one policy on which i found hillary whom clinton whom i strongly prefer and supported troubled me very much and word me very much and that was that she was part of quite widespread establishment concede democrat and republican deep state the everybody thinks me pushing toward a new cold war and i am very worried by that and i was afraid very much so that if she won as i hoped there would i would be much resistance there could be two demonizing the authoritarian state in russia and but making it into a new hitler which was actually a phrase that hillary clinton used at one point allying uh putin to get through which i think is irresponsible and the wrong however autocratic and brutal he may be instruments and i see this leaking right now which i have to say is they're telling if so long as it's true they're putting up crew information yes i don't want see the people who did that prosecuted actually but part of this context use that i think that the actual purpose of it is to discredit him on the very one policy one policy that i find myself in support of donald j trump when he says on the one hand in general no way wouldn't it be good if we could be friendly if we had normal relations with russia if we collaborated with them on issues where we could clever as might be the case in theory which put him totally in contrast to hillary clinton i i think there they really wanted thought that puffy and i think that's very dangerous had you of course exposed this massive violation of privacy in the united states and now you're stuck in a country where there's very little privacy and i'm sure the state apparatus is at least as large as the nsa was when you expose it if not more invasive and i imagine every utterance you make is recorded were.

cold war russia putin donald j trump hillary clinton united states one hand
"national security systems" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

02:58 min | 3 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on KTRH

"Do it so there you have it now let us go back the leaking jeff sessions at the department of justice today cut five mr producer go in the first six months of this administration the department of justice has already received nearly as many criminal referrals involving on authorize disclosures of classified information as we've received in the previous three years combined class stop got that so the first six months there been more lakes and you can say them there looking everywhere on this administration than in the last three years of the prime minister nation we have people in our government who are committing constantly committing felonies undermining our national security system more than our enemies are because they are the enemy within they are the they are the the enemy that look in the face that goes to work every day but goes the work for the other side it's unconscionable on its diabolica in the vast majority of them are obviously people who have a different agenda the president the united states and a different agenda than our farm policy intelligence and defense department and so they've taken it upon themselves violating their oath violating federal law to leak the leak national security information to leak information about the president's conversations with other world leaders entire transcripts i've never been seen anything like this before prison the united states now he's barely able to to function these barely able to do his job he's got congress on his but he's got this prosecutor on his but he's got people within the administration leaking on him so it's more and more difficult to do his job and i'm supposed to pile on record how did you see what each waited hey you know he has to be alert yeah yet oh crap stand up for your country the countries paying destroyed from within our constitutional system our security system our law enforcement system who are these people these rogue operators while we know some of them in there in the leadership of the fbi no question about it in my mind and some of the must be in the senior levels of our intelligence services too they are at war not just with this president their war with the constitution there at war with the voters.

producer president united states federal law security information prosecutor intelligence services department of justice prime minister law enforcement fbi three years six months
"national security systems" Discussed on This Week in Tech

This Week in Tech

01:42 min | 4 years ago

"national security systems" Discussed on This Week in Tech

"So should don't win now there was under obama back in two thousand eight the created called the vulnerabilities equity process in the theory was all the stakeholders come to the table and they and they actually had it was actually quite interesting a series of questions that they need to ask about this vulnerability to determine whether the nsa should be allowed to keep it or the cia or the fbi uh war should be required to turn it over let me see if i can find the questions that they ask mrs from epoch dot org vietronics privacy information center they have a lot of information about this v e p and it's it's been around as i said since two thousand eight the questions seen completely reasonable for instance a how much is the vulnerable system in this case it would monochrome case it would have been windows used in the core internet infrastructure in other critical infrastructure systems in the us economy or a national security systems in other words what's the danger does the vulnerability if left unpacked impose significant risk how much harm could an adversary nation do with or a criminal group do with knowledge of this vulnerability how likely is it we would know if someone else was explaining it how badly do we need the intelligence this is a really important one the one the nsa's can argue how badly do we need the intelligence we think we can get from exploiting the vulnerable what is this is a cost benefit analysis ran the benefit would be what what what are we get our there and this is good to other other ways we can get it.

obama cia windows fbi us