backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by mkrech.. on Mar 6 at 4:22 PM


Highly classified schematics of Obama's presidential helicopter, Marine One, recently leaked to Iran from a defense contractor, via P2P networks.  (Source: Tiversa/WPXI)

Marine One is shown here in flight. It is perhaps the most advanced military helicopter in the world, capable of safeguarding the U.S. President while in the air.  (Source: MiniHelicopter.net)
Blueprints found on Iranian P2P networks, authorities are investigating this serious breach

When it comes to national security, one of the keys to keeping the American President safe is the fleet of executive aircraft -- from presidential helicopters, to the ultra-high-tech jet fortress, Air Force One.  Thus it came as quite a shock to the security community when security firm Tiversa discovered blueprints of the Barack Obama's presidential helicopter, Marine One, being hosted by an Iranian IP address.

The leaked plans included details on the helicopter's communications and engineering.  Describes Bob Boback, CEO of Tiversa, "We found a file containing entire blueprints and avionics package for Marine One,which is the president's helicopter.  What appears to be a defense contractor in Bethesda, MD had a file sharing program on one of their systems that also contained highly sensitive blueprints for Marine One."

Mr. Boback believes the leak may be innocent in nature.  He points out that many file sharing programs automatically share the contents of your entire hard drive.  The employee may merely have downloaded a P2P client to download music and videos and ended up unwittingly leaking the highly confidential information on Marine One.  Says Mr. Boback, "When downloading one of these file-sharing programs, you are effectively allowing others around the world to access your hard drive."

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who consults with Tiversa, says that at least the breach has been fully traced.  He states, "We found where this information came from. We know exactly what computer it came from. I'm sure that person is embarrassed and may even lose their job, but we know where it came from and we know where it went."

According to Mr. Boback, they have notified the appropriate authorities, which are taking steps to safeguard the President.  He states, "They are working through a process to maintain the security of the president."

Iran is just one of several nations in the Middle East to comb P2P networks, he says.  He states, "We've noticed it out of Pakistan, Yemen, Qatar, and China. They are actively searching for information that is disclosed in this fashion because it is a great source of intelligence."

Rep. Jason Altmire (D - PA) said he was disturbed by the incident, and called on measures to monitor P2P networks more carefully for classified information.  He states, "Well, I'm very troubled to hear this because there are obviously elements in Iran that are not friendly to the United States and it would be an understatement to say that this type of information could be very detrimental were it to fall into the wrong hands."

Retired Gen. Clark aptly points out, "Once it's out there, it's hard to get it back. I don't think the full ramifications of this have been understood by the watchdog agencies."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Crap...
By Jansen (blog) on 3/2/2009 11:23:52 AM , Rating: 5
Now we have to spend another billion to redesign it...




RE: Crap...
By oab on 3/2/2009 11:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
Well, they were already re-designing it so perhaps despite the overruns to the production costs, there is less political capital lost if Obama approves the new Marine One because the old ones security has now been compromised.


RE: Crap...
By RamarC on 3/2/2009 12:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
a new marine one copter cost more than an air force one jet. the current marine one is a 20+ year old design so this 'leak' is hardly reason to justify buying new, overpriced replacements that still aren't flight worthy.


RE: Crap...
By Cypherdude1 on 3/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Crap...
By Cypherdude1 on 3/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Crap...
By callmeroy on 3/6/2009 12:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not more about the same, but realize there is a difference here --- where as Air Force costs about $425 million that's closer to actually real build costs. The cost of Marine One being so expensive includes a lot of fluff and contract BS that added to that cost - Marine One could be built for much less than 400 million in other words - and to the same standards and with the same features.

Still the reality is true on tax payer wallets that we are paying $400 million for a chopper. Well just think ...does a SINGLE Stealth Bomber cost about $1.5 BILLION? :)


RE: Crap...
By Jedi2155 on 3/6/2009 3:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
No, single stealth bomber costs $737 million - http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm


RE: Crap...
By TomZ on 3/2/2009 1:52:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well, they were already re-designing it so perhaps despite the overruns to the production costs, there is less political capital lost if Obama approves the new Marine One because the old ones security has now been compromised.
I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but it is a heck of a coincidence that this leak surfaces just a week after McCain very publicly criticized the new helicopter project.


RE: Crap...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Crap...
By smitty3268 on 3/2/2009 10:11:12 PM , Rating: 5
Uhm, Obama agreed and said he didn't see the need for the helicopters either. This was a project initiated by the Bush administration and supported by the Navy, not some Democratic boondoggle.


RE: Crap...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/2009 10:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Uhm, Obama agreed and said he didn't see the need for the helicopters either.


After he was called out on it.

/golf clap.

quote:
This was a project initiated by the Bush administration and supported by the Navy


So the Department of Defense is part of Pres 'administrations' now ?


RE: Crap...
By smitty3268 on 3/2/2009 11:53:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So the Department of Defense is part of Pres 'administrations' now ?

Well, the civilian leadership at the top is. But what I was actually referring to is the fact that this is less about Democratic/Republican politics, and more about defense contractor lobbyists and the Navy wanting to spend as much money as they can on their own pet projects (just like every other branch of the military).

quote:
After he was called out on it.

Well, it's not like he changed his mind or anything. Someone brought it up and he agreed. Do you expect him to come up with every single good idea personally?

I think the post that started all this wasn't even being dismissive of McCain or the Republicans at all, and I only really responded because you seemed to take it that way and responded in kind. I thought the original post was intimating that possibly the defense contractor that's at risk of losing money here (Ratheon?) might have leaked a good reason for their contract to keep from being cancelled. I admit, that was my first thought as well. But it's pretty clear this was just a case of incompetence.


RE: Crap...
By Dreifort on 3/3/2009 11:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
This is one of the things W. Bush did correctly. Why shouldn't the president of the united states have the latest technology and protection to guard his life?

It's not like the helicopter would be used by random civilians.

But Obama's need for presidential protection is slightly decreasing with each new terrorist supporting country he begins neqotiating with.

- Hey Syria, let's talk... remember, we're good buddes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si...
- Hamas, Shamas... let's sit down, talk, and spend some US dollars.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2888-World-News-Examiner...
- Let's not forget Chavez and Castro.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...


RE: Crap...
By smitty3268 on 3/3/2009 9:01:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But Obama's need for presidential protection is slightly decreasing with each new terrorist supporting country he begins neqotiating with.

So what you're saying is that we're safer as a result of negotiating?

Seriously, did you think before posting that?


RE: Crap...
By Dreifort on 3/4/2009 10:08:11 AM , Rating: 3
safer at what cost? our principals? other countries saftey?...

yes, I thought before I posted.


RE: Crap...
By smitty3268 on 3/4/2009 1:48:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
our principals?

Which principal is it, exactly, that you think is worth sacrificing American lives in exchange for? I hope it's not just the act of talking, and you have something more concrete in mind.

quote:
other countries saftey?...

I hardly think Cuba is going to invade another country. So I assume you are talking about Syria there. In that instance, we are actually trying to woo them away from Iran - if they become a client state of the US rather than Iran I think countries like Israel will end up being quite a bit safer, not the other way around.


RE: Crap...
By Dreifort on 3/5/2009 9:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
Since when were we ever worried about Cuba invading? Now if you are including objects invading our airspace, then we should be worried about an invasion from Cuba.

Obama is becoming friendlier with these terrorist supporting nations is a clear sign of our country throwing away their stance on NOT SUPPORTING terrorism. How is that for a principle?

The safety of many countries depends on the US (and other countries of peaceful power) ability draw lines and set restraints. Just popping in to random terrorist supporting countries to have a chat just completely destroys that ability.


RE: Crap...
By smitty3268 on 3/5/2009 10:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since when were we ever worried about Cuba invading?

Well, you're the one who said you were concerned about other countries safety, after posting a link about relations with Cuba. I didn't think that argument really applied towards Cuba, and I guess you don't either.

quote:
Obama is becoming friendlier with these terrorist supporting nations is a clear sign of our country throwing away their stance on NOT SUPPORTING terrorism.

I disagree. He's trying to get them to stop supporting terrorists, not supporting them himself. How is this any different than our relationship with Pakistan? There are tons of terrorists there, probably even Bin Laden himself, their intelligence agency has started half of them, and their government is making cease fire deals with them. Yet we call them an important ally because we really have no choice if we want to try to improve things there.

And anyway, 2 of the 3 links you gave were Cuba and Venezuela. I hardly think they are huge terrorist supporters - they're just anti-American countries. The US has certainly never had any problems making friends with all sorts of brutal dictators before, so that can hardly be your argument.

quote:
The safety of many countries depends on the US (and other countries of peaceful power) ability draw lines and set restraints.

Sure, I'll agree with that.

quote:
Just popping in to random terrorist supporting countries to have a chat just completely destroys that ability.

There I have to completely disagree. Look at North Korea. They told the Bush administration "negotiate or we'll make nuclear bombs". Bush thought that negotiating would be a sign of weakness, and that we couldn't give in. Well, guess what? Now they have nuclear weapons and are in a much stronger position than they were before we buried our heads in the sand and hoped they would just go away.

This line about talking to us being a huge deal is a relic of the Cold War. It used to be that the whole world was divided into 2 camps, and everyone took their marching orders from the top dogs. Now, though, that order has broken down. These rogue nations are perfectly happy to go their own way, and saying that not talking to them sets restraints on them is just silly.


RE: Crap...
By 67STANG on 3/2/2009 6:17:08 PM , Rating: 3
But if they build a new Marine One, it will create or save 3.5 million jobs-- and it won't cost the tax payers a dime. I repeat, not a dime.


RE: Crap...
By RamarC on 3/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Crap...
By BansheeX on 3/2/2009 9:46:06 PM , Rating: 5
Creating jobs is secondary to servicing our debt with actual exportable products. We could borrow trillions of dollars, pay government employees to dig holes, renovate bathrooms, build homes, "educate" each other, give backrubs, give haircuts, advise each other, counsel each other, and it wouldn't create a damn thing but interest obligations for which we would require greater and greater loans until collapse. It's an unsustainable ponzi scheme. Even if everything that we borrowed we spent on infrastructure, it still wouldn't produce an exportable product. Borrowing to produce non-exportable products and services is just consumption. That and voting our workers mandatory goodies is how we lost our manufacturing base and our ability to repay our creditors with anything more than a printing press. The little paper IOUs we call dollars show no signs of ever becoming a tangible product. If the dollar loses reserve status, the scheme is over and we are awash in useless paper with no manufacturing to product what we consume, and no currency value to outbid foreigners for their products.


RE: Crap...
By stilltrying on 3/2/2009 11:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well said most on here dont seem to get this they just drink the cool aid the media gives them.


RE: Crap...
By Teh Interwebz on 3/3/2009 12:26:26 PM , Rating: 1
The media's coolaid comes in red and blue flavors. They are both delicious in moderation.

Spending on infrastructure and education is a long and short term investment. In the short term it creates jobs in the long term it creates the roads, rails, and minds that will fuel our economy going forward just as Ike's interstate system is a major boon to our economy today.


RE: Crap...
By jeff834 on 3/3/2009 3:36:57 PM , Rating: 4
You're both wrong. It's Kool Aid.


RE: Crap...
By jeff834 on 3/2/2009 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 3
I think you're underestimating our government/military spending power, what you meant to say was 10 billion. It's ok though we were just going to spend that money on flak jackets anyway.


RE: Crap...
By 67STANG on 3/2/2009 11:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't he be flying in something like "Airwolf" anyhow? I mean come on.... it's only money. Better yet, don't bail out AIG (again) and buy 3 of those puppies.


RE: Crap...
By Smilin on 3/2/2009 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 3
That thing IS Airwolf.


RE: Crap...
By Spookster on 3/3/2009 1:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
Ernest Borgnine would love that. He wouldn't have to squeeze his fat ass into that tiny back seat anymore.


RE: Crap...
By Dfere on 3/2/2009 12:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have to spend another dollar.

Your analysis seems to indicate that contractor built everything and maintains all protocols and security for that helicopter. The only defense that helicopter has is the entire Air Force as its defense and warning system.

Geez. What we do not need in America right now, is any more hyperbole and exaggeration.


Bizzare
By NuroMancer on 3/2/2009 11:28:29 AM , Rating: 5
Is it just me or are other people wondering how this could possibly happen.

P2P traffic isn't exactly a black box, so why wasn't the traffic blocked from going outbound?

Protecting intellectual property is a hot topic these days, and closing the easy ways to get that information out (ftp, p2p, etc) seems like a no brainer to me for defense contractors...




RE: Bizzare
By erikejw on 3/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Bizzare
By NuroMancer on 3/2/2009 11:39:01 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe its just me, but something the the plans for a ultra secret helicopter do not belong on a home computer.


RE: Bizzare
By jhb116 on 3/2/2009 9:23:12 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed - this would actually be illegal - if the plans were actually classified in any way.

Monitor P2P traffic - hmmm - isn't this akin to the NSA illegal wiretapping scandals associated with the Bush administration - but now its ok?

How about this - first make sure we enforce the laws already in place in case this person (or people) actually took this stuff home. Second BLOCK P2P in the workplace unless there is a really good reason, work related, for it to be there. Just a thought.


RE: Bizzare
By djc208 on 3/2/2009 11:42:10 AM , Rating: 4
If it was "highly sensative" it shouldn't have been on a home PC, that would be issue #1. The fact that he installed some non-approved software on this system was issue #2. If it was at all classified it shouldn't have even been on a network with access to the interent.

My big question is why was anyone allowed to install the file sharing program on the system at all? Of all the lockdowns and permissions the system probably has, preventing the user from installing new programs should have been one.


RE: Bizzare
By RandomFool on 3/2/2009 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree but if it was done by someone in IT they could probably easily get around those safeguards.


RE: Bizzare
By omnicronx on 3/2/2009 12:24:20 PM , Rating: 4
Get around safeguards yes, but someone in an IT position having access to the files in question in the first place, probably not.

I am always amazed how much trust is put into low level IT positions. For the most sensitive of data, my company allows a grand total of 2 IT personnel to have access to the most sensitive of company data. One of those is only allowed to do so if the primary person is not available.

Furthermore they are not allowed to give their own personal computers access to this information, they are only allowed to map the drives to those that are allowed to see this kind of info.

Laptop use at home is only allowed via VPN which shuts off all other network connections (inbound and outbound), and under no circumstances is sensitive data to be stored locally on these laptops.

I see no reason why any high level government or top secret contractors should not follow these kind of guidelines.


RE: Bizzare
By Spuke on 3/2/2009 1:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
In the government, you can't bring anything in or take anything out if you work in a classified area. He must have snuck a CD or USB stick in with the P2P software on it. But that still doesn't explain how that computer got connected to the internet. There's no internet access in classified areas.


RE: Bizzare
By derwin on 3/2/2009 2:07:50 PM , Rating: 3
He didnt work for DoD or anything, he was employed by a contracted private/public company.


RE: Bizzare
By Spuke on 3/2/2009 6:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter. Same rules apply.


RE: Bizzare
By Whaaambulance on 3/2/2009 2:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of those is only allowed to do so if the primary person is not available


Let us say for a moment that this one person is responsible for stealing the document.

There needs to be checkouts/checkins and document/file history checking. Any data that is classified should have these types of security systems in place and every person that is in contact with the data should be responsible for his part in it.


RE: Bizzare
By MozeeToby on 3/2/2009 11:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing he took the classified material home with him to get some work done or something along those lines. Of course, that is illegal, against company policy, and just plain stupid; but unless you have guards following every employee everywhere they go, it can happen pretty easily.

Like you said, machines that are allowed to handle classified information aren't hooked up to the internet (unless they are built from the ground up to do so, thinking of the President's smart-phone which is really two devices in one). It would be both difficult and useless to place filesharing software on a classified system.

If they can figure out who did this, accident or no, the guy will be fired and quite probably arrested and tried as well.


RE: Bizzare
By Dasickninja on 3/4/2009 10:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
No need for a ground up build. There is a simple way to prevent Internet connectivity for computers in a sensitive area. Disable http.

Or even simpler, remove the LAN cable.


RE: Bizzare
By GaryJohnson on 3/2/2009 11:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
The interesting thing I find in the articles about this incident is that they never actually call this information 'classified' or 'secret' just 'sensitive'. Now I don't think any of us can see how this particular information couldn't be secret, but maybe it wasn't.


RE: Bizzare
By Fritzr on 3/3/2009 12:58:54 AM , Rating: 2
Classified means that it is for limited release/use...ie "secret".

Some of the classifications are: Confidential, Sensitive, Secret, Top Secret. The very existence of the highest classifications is classified information. Each classification is based on how dangerous the release of the info would be. So things like obsolete commo codes that are rarely used may be Confidential, The President's itinary when traveling in the Middle East would likely be higher than Top Secret.


RE: Bizzare
By RagingDragon on 3/2/2009 12:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'd guess it's somebody working from home - using an employer provided laptop on a home network. Probably an engineer or someone using a special application which requires administrator rights to run.


RE: Bizzare
By Spuke on 3/2/2009 1:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
I find it strange myself. We can't even get to ANY P2P websites where I work. It's all blocked. My guess would be that he brought it from home and installed it on his work computer. But then that begs the question of how a computer having sensitive or classified info got connected to the internet? Those machines have NO internet connections. They are on a separate, closed network. There's a ton of missing info here.


Open Communications
By Machinegear on 3/2/2009 12:04:42 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
Obama has said that he would open up communication with Iran.


I wonder if this is what the messiah meant... :-)

(The quote is from here:)

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/26/...




RE: Open Communications
By Belard on 3/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Open Communications
By Spuke on 3/2/2009 6:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you assume he is white? And if he is, why does that matter?


RE: Open Communications
By descendency on 3/2/2009 7:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. It's not funny. This is a serious matter of national security. Finally, a democrat is worried about national security and secrecy of government operations... I wish we had a president like this before

However, you are clearly a racist idiot.

Oh wait... only whites can be racist.


RE: Open Communications
By TheRagnarok on 3/5/2009 3:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh wait... only whites can be racist.


Sarcasm?


RE: Open Communications
By phxfreddy on 3/2/2009 7:10:47 PM , Rating: 1
Its not nice to call Obama retarded. The proper more acceptable term is "challenged". Try to go easy on Belard he feels a kinship with our presidents deficiencies. And like most Obama supporters he can not get up off his knees for him and you know its difficult for him to respond because its impolite to talk with his mouth full.


This happened to us
By dgingeri on 3/2/2009 6:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
This happened to my company, where an employee downloaded and installed a file sharing program, and the contents of a web site he was working on were shared out to the rest of the file sharing network. One of our competitors got a hold of it and tried using some of our code. Fortunately, it was from a QA machine and didn't work right, but they got enough out of it to do them some good. It took over a year in court to get them to stop using our code.

Long before this, file sharing programs have been strictly forbidden on any company machines, but this employee "got bored". I only wish that management was strong enough to actually fire the guy. This is something that should be a firable offense.

File sharing programs on company machines is a major avenue to liability against any company. Not just the sharing of critical business information, but also the possibility of getting the company sued by the RIAA or MPAA. WHoever is stupid enough to do this should not have any sort of corporate job. they are too stupid to have such responsibility.

(We also had a VP have his password to our administrative site stolen by spyware he got infected with by playing on-line poker. No information about our customers was stolen, but it easily could have been. Again, he wasn't fired. Weak management.)




RE: This happened to us
By phxfreddy on 3/2/2009 7:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
We live in a world of many details. It easy to say hard over this or that.....but try sometime managing other people. If you try controlling everything you get bad results. People do tons of little tasks in a day an you just never know what will happen. Its random to large degree.......If you do not agree then please post what you had for lunch on February 12,2002. Get it?


RE: This happened to us
By dgingeri on 3/2/2009 7:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm not talking everything. I don't want everything controlled. I work in IT as a desktop support tech, and I certainly understand when people put Kodak Easy Share on their laptops to work with their personal photos. I won't tell on them about that. I understand when people put their Quicken on their company machines.

There are some things, though, that are just "too stupid to be employed here" type moves, such as putting on P2P sharing programs, hacked games, hacked and virus ridden apps, and that sort of blatantly illegal activity. Also, using company computers to download and install internet programs that are known to be spyware ridden. (While not illegal, it certainly opens many security holes on the computer.) Certain actions are just too stupid to just be dismissed.

While drunk driving wasn't illegal in the 1900's, I certainly blame the idiot who killed my great grandmother for being one of those "too stupid" types.


RE: This happened to us
By phxfreddy on 3/2/2009 11:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ok so we'll just control what YOU think we should control. Of course this will apply to all 300 million of us. Thus we'll have 300 million rules minimum.

I yi yi. People just do not get it. You can not interfer with others without expecting them to want to interfer back.

Listen closely: Our culture is already pathetically uptight and unfun. You think getting all draconian on some poor fool is going to help? He's the one guy you can be sure will not do it again. People make mistakes.

Fact is the guy is probably pretty good at what he does or he would have been fired. These sort of things are great excuse for firings and the fact he wasn't given current environment means he must be the bomb.


RE: This happened to us
By mkrech on 3/6/2009 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
I remember February 12,2002 very well. It was a day that I had to prioritize security levels of people I supervise and the various tasks that they perform.

Some of the people performed general tasks that require access to information that has very little security risk. Those people required limited restrictions on the tasks they perform. Other people performed tasks that require access to highly critical information. I had to establish and enforce very specific restrictions on the tasks these people complete.

Managing the security of the information under my responsibility is of paramount importance. So, ensuring that I met my responsibility by properly establishing and enforcing security policies made me quite hungry. On that day I had the "Tremendous Twelve" for lunch at Perkins. I had french toast instead of the pancakes. I also had a glass of orange juice with my meal.

Get it?


Accidentally?
By x86 64 on 3/2/2009 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 3
Right, accidentally leaked them.




RE: Accidentally?
By fishbits on 3/2/2009 11:58:24 AM , Rating: 4
"Mr. Boback believes the leak may be innocent in nature."

I'm trying to picture anyone I've ever worked for describing putting P2P sofware on a classified system (or classified documents on a system with P2P software) as "innocent." At best, "innocent" like a firefighter tossing a lit cigarette into a drought-stricken forest is innocent. "I didn't deliberately try to cause a fire, it just predictably happened due to my actions, the risks of which I was perfectly aware."

"I'm sure that person is embarrassed and may even lose their job..."
Be a fun situation come contract bid times involving that defense contractor. "You folks still have that guy working for you that put classified national security docs on a P2P server? You've got competitors who don't employ people like that."

However, intersting timing this comes to light right after concerns raised over the price of the helicopter. "We didn't want to spend the money for something new, but gosh, now we have to."


RE: Accidentally?
By FS on 3/2/2009 6:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
In the near future, if accidentally an "accident" occurs involving one of these helicopters then there'll be a lot of accidents taking place in Iran for sure as this accidental leak made it's way to Iran.


You Can't Make This Stuff Up
By snakepliskin on 3/2/2009 12:19:22 PM , Rating: 4
Has anyone looked at this company ?

http://www.tiversa.com/

Scary, Very Scary




RE: You Can't Make This Stuff Up
By mkrech on 3/6/2009 4:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
From the Ars Technica story:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/sp...

quote:
Tiversa Director of Operations Keith Tagliaferri, who oversees the team that detected the Marine One files,...

He describes the leaked Marine One documents as a "seven out of 10" on his own personal scale of severity, relative to the kinds of information he has found floating about online. And the tens? "There's no way we would ever, ever talk about that stuff."


YIKES!


Maybe this is a guise
By stilltrying on 3/2/2009 11:51:51 AM , Rating: 5
So that US Govt can start filtering and blocking P2P. Ever heard of the ACTA Treaty. Well now that something like this happens we must implement ACTA. Problem, reaction, solution. Hegelian dialect.




Treason?
By abscoder on 3/2/2009 11:33:02 AM , Rating: 2
Couldn't this be considered treason under Article III Section 3, let alone some of the later statutes regarding undermining the government or the national security? Of does treason conviction require proof of intent? To this layman, seems like a case against the p2p individual and the person responsible for securing the network could be made.




RE: Treason?
By fishbits on 3/2/2009 11:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
If he deliberately stuffed original classified documents into his garments, took them home and destroyed them it wouldn't be treason. Well, to be fair, we don't know yet if this was Sandy Berger again.


I'm confused...
By Aikouka on 3/2/2009 1:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
That picture is from a MH60-S (it says so in the upper right), which isn't even the current presidential helicopter (according to wikipedia, it's the UH-60 or the SH-3). The new presidential helo that is under scrutiny also isn't the MH-60S (it's based on the EH101).

Is someone attempting to buzz this up or is it just this one image that isn't relative?




RE: I'm confused...
By Aikouka on 3/2/2009 5:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
I found a video from the news channel that originally reported it ( http://www.wpxi.com/video/18824598/index.html ) and you're able to see more of the documents. I was able to see part of the document that DailyTech has in their image and it says "VH-60N", which is the current helo used as Marine One. The confusing references to MH60-S seem to be related to using the similar software package.


Whoops!
By Casual Observer on 3/2/2009 4:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine he'll get the non-US built replacements now! lmao




RE: Whoops!
By Radical Yellow Duck on 3/4/2009 6:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I live in CT and Sikorsky aircraft built the old marine one. As I recall there was a big stink in that the replacement they wanted to buy was an Italian built helicopter. Now did the leaked information deal with the new or the existing helicopter?

I have to question why anyone would allow P2P software on a computer that contains classified information. Or how classified information got onto an unsecured machine is another question. I cant agree with the recommendation for treason. The constitution requires two witnesses to an overt act. But espionage... well that is a different story. If he knowingly allowed iran the information then the firing he should recieve should be delivered by a small squad of soldiers. You have been terminated, with extreme prejudice.


Innocently?
By AntiM on 3/2/2009 11:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mr. Boback believes the leak may be innocent in nature.


I would hardly describe it as "innocent". It's more like an act of gargantuan stupidity. You work for a defense contractor and you install a P2P application on your work machine??? A machine that has highly classified documents??
Even attempting to do something like that where I work would get you fired. Any company entrusted with storing classifIed government documents that doesn't have a firewall that blocks access to P2P sites or a proxy that doesn't prevent these apps from being installed shouldn't be allowed to have any government contracts at all.




RE: Innocently?
By borismkv on 3/2/2009 12:03:12 PM , Rating: 1
My opinion exactly. This is very much the result of an IT department not giving a crap and/or company management trying to cut financial corners. They need to lose their contractor status. Period.


Not Buying It
By NaughtyGeek on 3/2/2009 1:11:47 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe I need to get out the tin foil hat, but I'm not buying that this was accidental. Either this info was actually dis-info leaked intentionally or it was leaked as another "strike" against p2p to allow legislators another route to attack them other than child porn.




Marine One
By 2bdetermine on 3/2/2009 2:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think this was an accidental leak. I smell a rat. It must had something to do with the skyrocket price of a new Marine One fleet contract.




No big deal...
By Amiga500 on 3/2/2009 2:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Any reasonably intelligent military officer could have hazarded a guess at the facts and figures of marine 1.

It doesn't mean diddly squat in terms of being able to execute an operation against it.




RE: No big deal...
By codeThug on 3/2/09, Rating: 0
Let Mr.Obama take the
By raghavny80 on 3/3/2009 1:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
Amtrak, Greyhound or a Toyota Prius for commuting around. No more need for Marine One.




arabs blow
By GlassHouse69 on 3/2/09, Rating: 0
It was probably a Republican
By holymaniac on 3/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: It was probably a Republican
By KCjoker on 3/2/2009 4:57:17 PM , Rating: 3
Yea that's EXACTLY what Repubs want...Obama to become a iconic martyr.


RE: It was probably a Republican
By sprockkets on 3/2/2009 5:15:57 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe the haters and the KKK.

There are those out there who don't mind getting shafted in the rear by a white person, but would never get a blow job by a black person.


RE: It was probably a Republican
By phxfreddy on 3/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: It was probably a Republican
By sprockkets on 3/2/2009 8:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your (sic) retarded, and you in this case loved getting shafted by Cheney and the next republican and would refuse a blow job by any democrat.

Nope, I'm neither for any political party, because...

"Republican's suck and Democrats blow."


RE: It was probably a Republican
By phxfreddy on 3/2/09, Rating: 0
By sprockkets on 3/3/2009 1:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
And you sir, do not know what "sic" means. Your (sic) retarded.


RE: It was probably a Republican
By dgingeri on 3/2/2009 7:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
Believe me, the last thing we need is Obama dead. Then Joe Biden would be come president. After him would be Nancy Pelosi. Talk about going from the frying pan into the burning flames of hell itself.


By phxfreddy on 3/2/2009 7:19:31 PM , Rating: 4
The 3 idiots!

Each one more deranged than the last no matter what order you place them in! Just how do you do that?!


By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/2009 9:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's so sad that a comment like that on even Daily Tech gets uprated. Holymaniac, were you actually being serious ?

I hate to dignify your statement with a logical argument, but even if that was true, which it's not, how would this help anyone knock off the Prez ? You think our enemies need top secret information about a helicopter to shoot one down ? Helicopters are the worse defensive flying platforms available. Anything from small arms ground fire up to a handheld missile on up would easily knock down Marine One.

EVERY President could be easily assasinated by a foreign power. Trust me. The only thing that stops them from doing it is that they know the United States would turn any country that does it into a smoking hole in the ground. And then we would go after anyone that even remotely helped them and turn them into a smoking hole in the ground.

The information leaked isn't about helping someone find a weakness in shooting down a 20 year old helicopter airframe. Nobody needs help bringing down a helicopter. And if you think otherwise you have been reading too much Tom Clancy. Although judging from the intelligence on Daily Tech, at least on this topic, maybe Tom would be too high brow.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki