FBI Admits To Using Zero Day Exploits To Hack Into Computers
from the that-doesn't-make-you-safer dept
It's been widely suspected for ages that both the NSA and the FBI made use of so-called "zero-day" exploits to hack into computers. Leaks from a few years ago (which may or may not have come from Snowden) exposed just how massive the NSA's exploit operation was, and there have been plenty of stories of security companies selling exploits to the NSA, who would use them, rather than reveal them and get them patched -- thereby putting the public at risk. Last year, the President told the NSA to get better at revealing these zero day exploits to companies to patch, rather than hoarding them for their own use. Just about a month ago, the NSA proudly announced that it now discloses vulnerabilities 90% of the time -- but conveniently left out how long it uses them before disclosing them.However, the FBI's use of zero day exploits has been much more of a black box. The FBI has a long history of using various hacking tools to break into computers, and the judicial system has been an ever obedient "overseer" in letting the FBI do damn close to whatever it pleases. But, now, for the first time, the FBI has publicly admitted to using zero day exploits. It comes out in a Washington Post profile of Amy Hess, who heads the Operational Technology Division (OTD) of the FBI.
The profile is pretty interesting, and there's lots of technical wizardry that I think most people would agree is good for the FBI to have for investigating crimes. But the surveillance aspects are pretty sketchy, as always. And here, Hess confesses to using zero days, though she insists that they're not really that useful:
Hess acknowledged that the bureau uses zero-days — the first time an official has done so. She said the trade-off is one the bureau wrestles with. “What is the greater good — to be able to identify a person who is threatening public safety?” Or to alert software makers to bugs that, if unpatched, could leave consumers vulnerable?The other tidbit worth reading discusses just how well the FBI informs judges when seeking warrants to use some of its more esoteric spy equipment. The answer, not surprisingly, is that it looks like the FBI frequently misleads the judiciary into the specifics of what it's really doing.
“How do we balance that?” she said. “That is a constant challenge for us.”
She added that hacking computers is not a favored FBI technique. “It’s frail,” she said. As soon as a tech firm updates its software, the tool vanishes. “It clearly is not reliable” in the way a traditional wiretap is, she said.
Another group that remains shrouded is OTD’s Remote Operations Unit. There, technicians with a warrant hack computers to identify suspects. Euphemistically called “network investigative techniques,” that activity has stirred concerns similar to those raised with the use of StingRays.It's these kinds of things that are wide open to abuse -- and the FBI has a very long and very detailed history of abusing its powers.
For one thing, the warrant applications do not describe the technique’s use in detail. So judges may not really understand what they are authorizing. Hess said that agents can describe the process more fully to a judge in closed chambers. That’s if the judge knows to ask.
Again, I think most people would agree that the FBI should have a strong technology team that is able to provide useful tools for criminal investigations. But there's a fine line between an investigation and illegal surveillance. And, at the same time, there's the issue of abusing exploits when they could be making the public safer by getting them patched.
Filed Under: amy hess, exploits, fbi, hacking, odt, surveillance, zero days
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Um... except you have not produced one yet that was not of your own making. Pure bullshit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, if you have finally put your brain in gear, you might see what is so objectionable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're thinking of a specific type malware, which may or may not take advantage of a zero day exploit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you've got root on suspected bad guy's box, are you going to be looking into what he's done and what he's doing? With a warrant signed by a judge who understands the situation, great!
Are you going to be planting evidence or manufacturing terrorist plots just to get suspected bad guy in jail (which is what the prosecutor is going to be screaming for)? Not so good, and in Chicago (among many other places) I'd expect the latter. Are judges knowledgable enough to demand full transcripts of the cops' actions and believable before and after listings of devices' contents and actions? Ha ha. Very funny.
Who watches the watchers? We still care about chain of evidence and all that boring technical stuff, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is, from a security point of view, utter madness.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's even more maddening is that some of these systems can be accessed outside the physical property in the first place. Remember Stuxnet? It was supposed to target a specific system but guess what? It got out into the wild and did a little more damage than intended.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a bold claim. Not that I would refuse to believe it, but the cited article doesn't give enough evidence to lead one to that conclusion, as the author states "So judges may not really understand what they are authorizing." Notice the word "may".
Objectivity and skepticism make the best TD articles, I hope we can avoid partisan assumptions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Absolutely. Which is why the roles of Judges and warrants are so important.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI Admits To Using Zero Day Exploits
Well .. DOH! .. What was the name of the Desktop operating these exploits ran on?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
3 years ago?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
YES!
HAVE they planted evidence using this approach?
that is CLASSIFIED™
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Military: Sometimes you have to destroy a village to save it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Your government keepa hiding the fact that a comet is hurtling towards planet earth, because Agents keeps deciding the United State wants their federal agency digging up potentially useful potential dirt on potential bad guys instead of telling the world a discovered fact that's PLAINLY useful for good guys to be OPENLY told on Day Bloody Zero.
Agency nontransparency is as dangerous as US drone policy is unjust.
What's being done in secret is not being done in America's name. She is kept blind.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More like purposely looking the other way. Willful blindness is no excuse.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget the hypocrisy of it all...
I'm not sure this government is really by the people for the people anymore.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply