Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday October 25 2019, @07:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the buttery-males dept.

White House kicks infosec team to curb in IT office shakeup

An internal White House memo published today by Axios reveals that recent changes to the information operations and security organizations there have left the security team in tumult, with many members headed for the door. And the chief of the White House's computer network defense branch—who wrote the memo after submitting his resignation—warned that the White House was likely headed toward another network compromise and theft of data.

The White House Office of the Chief Information Security Officer was set up after the 2014 breach of an unclassified White House network by Russian intelligence—a breach discovered by a friendly foreign government. But in a July reorganization, the OCISO was dissolved and its duties placed under the White House Office of the Chief Information Officer, led by CIO Ben Pauwels and Director of White House IT Roger L. Stone. Stone was pulled from the ranks of the National Security Council where he was deputy senior director for resilience policy. (Stone is not related to indicted Republican political consultant Roger J. Stone.)

[...] "It is my express opinion that the remaining incumbent OCISO staff is being systematically targeted for removal from the Office of Administration," departing White House network defense branch chief Dimitrios Vastakis wrote in the memo. The security team had seen incentive pay revoked, scope of duties cut, and access to systems and facilities reduced, Vastakis noted. Staffers' "positions with strategic and tactical decision making authorities" had also been revoked. "In addition, habitually being hostile to incumbent OCISO staff has become a staple tactic for the new leadership... it has forced the majority of [senior civil servant] OCISO staff to resign."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday October 25 2019, @01:17PM (31 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday October 25 2019, @01:17PM (#911621) Journal

    All these records of incriminating emails and conversations and things are proving to be very inconvenient.
    Rump can afford to have only "his" people1 handling such data, and so is purging anyone who may be unwilling to hide / purge evidence when so ordered.

    It fits his MO perfectly.

    1 That is to say, people loyal solely to him rather than to their country, constitution or to any kind of ethical code / oath.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=1, Insightful=4, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @02:41PM (30 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @02:41PM (#911641)

    Did you say that about Hilary Clinton, who actually got caught doing these things you accuse Trump of with no evidence?

    No, because you are a partisan idiot.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 25 2019, @02:48PM (27 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday October 25 2019, @02:48PM (#911643) Journal
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:31PM (25 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:31PM (#911656)

        Wow, the department investigated itself and found no wrongdoing. I wish we all got to investigate ourselves.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:52PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:52PM (#911677)

          Wow, the department investigated itself and found no wrongdoing.

          In case you hadn't noticed, the management changed hands a few years back. Do try to keep up.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:03PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:03PM (#911685)

            I did notice the government is still overrun by career bureaucrats/politicans.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 25 2019, @03:54PM (22 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday October 25 2019, @03:54PM (#911679) Journal

          Mike Pompeo investigated Hillary Clinton and they STILL couldn't make anything stick!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:05PM (20 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:05PM (#911689)

            And? I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Is he a republican, or Trump appointee, therefore he is supposed to be an honest dude who does a good job?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:19PM (19 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:19PM (#911699)

              And? I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

              Pompeo is a Trump-appointed cabinet member. He has no interest in shielding Hillary from accusations of wrongdoing. Whether he is actually competent to ferret out wrongdoing is anybody's guess but I'm sure he gave it his all. Again, do try to keep up.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:30PM (18 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:30PM (#911708)

                That is a lot of assumptions you've got there. I don't trust anyone in DC, and you are a fool to do so.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:44PM (17 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:44PM (#911717)

                  That is a lot of assumptions you've got there.

                  My only assumptions were that (1) Pompeo has no interest in shielding Hillary from accusations of wrongdoing and (2) that he gave this investigation everything he had. So which of these assumptions do you disagree with?

                  I don't trust anyone in DC, and you are a fool to do so.

                  A fool is as a fool does. I shall keep my own counsel on who I trust, thank you very much.

                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:49PM (10 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:49PM (#911718)

                    Pompeo has no interest in shielding Hillary from accusations of wrongdoing

                    And why would you assume anyone in DC gets to a position of power without being blackmailed from multiple angles?

                    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:56PM (9 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:56PM (#911721)

                      And why would you assume anyone in DC gets to a position of power without being blackmailed from multiple angles?

                      Do you have any evidence that Pompeo was blackmailed to come to the "proper" conclusion regarding Hilary's emails? From my "angle", it appears that this is entirely your assumption.

                      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:27PM (8 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:27PM (#911736)

                        You have evidence he isn't blackmailed? The default assumption is that everyone who gets into power is blackmailed. You stay in power by blackmailing the people who blackmailed you. Do you not understand how the world works?

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:44PM (7 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:44PM (#911746)

                          Do you not understand how the world works?

                          Yes, I understand how the world works. I also understand how to have a logical argument in good faith. You made the claim that Pompeo is being blackmailed to come to a certain conclusion regarding Hilary's emails; you have the burden to prove it. If you want to convince me, you will need to produce some evidence, which I have asked for. So far, you haven't provided any.

                          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:51PM (3 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:51PM (#911752)

                            No, I really don't have the burden to prove it. That they are all blackmailing each other to survive is a first principle you need to accept to understand how the world works.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:55PM (2 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:55PM (#911758)

                              So, I feel very safe in assuming you have no evidence to back up your claim. May I take my victory lap now?

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:15PM (1 child)

                                by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:15PM (#911773)

                                The evidence is that he is in power. I don't need any more.

                                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @07:21PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @07:21PM (#911805)

                                  In that case, I am going to assume that you are a troll on Putin's payroll. The evidence is that you are here, desperately trying to defend the indefensible. I don't need any more.

                          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday October 25 2019, @09:19PM (2 children)

                            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 25 2019, @09:19PM (#911871) Journal

                            The real answer is that one needs to accept varying levels of uncertainty. To decide on the available evidence either that he was or wasn't blackmailed is clear bias. To assert that "nobody gets into a position of power without being blackmailed multiple ways" is probable paranoia unless there is evidence that has not been displayed.

                            My *assumption* (which is without certainty) is that Hillary broke several rules in the handling of email, but didn't do (i.e. wasn't responsible for) anything major, and that many others have been shown to be breaking those same rules.

                            FWIW, the rules clearly stated that those emails were to be on an official server. Also the official server was less secure than the one she used. And there's no evidence that I've encountered that she sent anything classified over that server, or received anything more than confidential (and I'm not sure about that). The news coverage I've read has been it's usual honest and thorough self, so my picture is rather foggy. Anyway to blame someone for receiving something unsolicited is a bit strange, though if I understand the laws it's the legal standard.

                            --
                            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @12:19AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @12:19AM (#911928)

                              And there's no evidence that I've encountered that she sent anything classified over that server, or received anything more than confidential (and I'm not sure about that).

                              Where did you look? Because this is what Comey announced in 2016:

                              Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

                              For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

                              https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system [fbi.gov]

                              He originally called it "grossly negligent", but then changed the wording because that meant it was illegal:

                              Comey’s initial draft statement, which he shared with
                              FBI senior leadership on May 2, criticized Clinton’s
                              handling of classified information as “grossly negligent,”
                              but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would
                              bring a case based on the facts developed in the
                              Midyear investigation. Over the course of the next 2
                              months, Comey’s draft statement underwent various
                              language changes, including the following:

                              The description of Clinton’s handling of
                              classified information was changed from
                              “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;”

                              A statement that the sheer volume of
                              information classified as Secret supported an
                              inference of gross negligence was removed and
                              replaced with a statement that the classified
                              information they discovered was “especially
                              concerning because all of these emails were
                              housed on servers not supported by full-time
                              staff”;

                              A statement that the FBI assessed that it was
                              “reasonably likely” that hostile actors gained
                              access to Clinton’s private email server was
                              changed to “possible.” The statement also
                              acknowledged that the FBI investigation and its
                              forensic analysis did not find evidence that
                              Clinton’s email server systems were
                              compromised; and

                              A paragraph summarizing the factors that led
                              the FBI to assess that it was possible that
                              hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was
                              added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s
                              use of her private email for an exchange with
                              then President Obama while in the territory of a
                              foreign adversary. This reference later was
                              changed to “another senior government
                              official,” and ultimately was omitted.

                              Each version of the statement criticized Clinton’s
                              handling of classified information. Comey told us that
                              he included criticism of former Secretary Clinton’s
                              uncharged conduct because “unusual transparency...was
                              necessary for an unprecedented situation,” and that
                              such transparency “was the best chance we had of
                              having the American people have confidence that the
                              justice system works[.]”

                              https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download [justice.gov]

                              So obviously you are unfamiliar with any of the basic facts of this situation. I would recommend reading that OIG report in full. Lots of hints about stuff we have yet to see come to light in there.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @01:31AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @01:31AM (#911947)

                              Here is a good summary of part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag [youtube.com]

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:51PM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:51PM (#911720)

                    And you also assume the director has any say about the details of the investigation. Look at Mueller, who didn't even know what Fusion GPS was because his team of DNC lawyers didn't tell him about it.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:07PM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:07PM (#911727)

                      And you also assume the director has any say about the details of the investigation.

                      I assume that, as director, he has leverage to get people to do a thorough job of investigating the matter. So, yes, he does have say about as much of the details of the investigation as he wants to have.

                      Look at Mueller, who didn't even know what Fusion GPS was because his team of DNC lawyers didn't tell him about it.

                      Mueller, decided that Fusion GPS was outside of the purview of his investigation. If Barr thinks it is worth investigating, he has the responsibility of pursuing it with another investigation.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:30PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:30PM (#911737)

                        Mueller, decided that Fusion GPS was outside of the purview of his investigation.

                        No, he had never heard of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=mjAk1bZ3jwo [youtube.com]

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:52PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @05:52PM (#911755)

                          That youtube clip doesn't say what you apparently think it says. In fact, it reinforces what I have already said: Fusion GPS was outside the purview of Mueller's investigation.

                          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:18PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:18PM (#911774)

                            It says exactly what I said it said. Mueller says he is not familiar with Fusion GPS. I mean, whatever... your loss for not understanding how Washington DC works to the point you disregard a blatant fact.

                            You had your chance but are too dumb to learn. It is one big cross-blackmail CYA operation.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @07:01PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @07:01PM (#911798)

                    Looks like he's also a warmonger, like Clinton:

                    There are troubling signs that Secretary Pompeo is not likely to jettison his more warlike approach, More importantly, we know from personal experience with Pompeo’s dismissive attitude to instructions from you that his agenda can deviate from yours on issues of major consequence.

                    Pompeo’s behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to military action — perhaps even without your approval — to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is a neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose dilettante approach to interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq (and continued pride in his role in promoting it), and fierce pursuit of his own aggressive agenda are a matter of a decades-long record. You may not be fully aware of our experience with Pompeo, who has now taken the lead on Iran.

                    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/21/vips-memo-to-the-president-is-pompeos-agenda-the-same-as-yours/ [consortiumnews.com]

          • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Friday October 25 2019, @06:46PM

            by Spamalope (5233) on Friday October 25 2019, @06:46PM (#911787) Homepage

            Improper possession of classified documents was proven. That's all that's needed for a conviction. Spoliation of evidence enhances that.
            Politics and finality both weigh heavily when it comes to Hillary.

            Similar facts for a person not politically connected would result in jail time. Political power, and the BS games already played both make the situation as it sits a mud pit.

            I'm far less interested in the document handling than I am that she was concealing her business communication while Sec State. That's an offense, specifically to make it harder to hide corruption. Taken with the appearance of impropriety when (as an example) the Saudis make donations to the Clinton Foundation ahead of State dept policy that favors them...

            I'd like to see an audit of the Clinton foundation, Hillary's emails and State Dept. policy to either clear the air or deal with the dirty laundry. But who the hell could you trust to do that impartially? It'd be political all the way in practice... (both parties have been caught in enough lies that default distrust seems reasonable)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:42PM (#911666)

        Did they investigate this??

        July 23, 2014: The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city.

        https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/ [politifact.com]

        July 24, 2014:

        Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out.
        I am not sure if something like this is possible with PowerShell, or exporting all of the emails to MSG and doing find/replaces with a batch processing program of some sort.
        Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?

        https://archive.fo/u5Ks9 [archive.fo]

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:53PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @03:53PM (#911678)

      Hey come on, it's Friday. Shouldn't redneck fascist-apologists like you be at home fucking their sisters?

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @04:08PM (#911691)

        Just like you thought Q followers were a bunch of teenage boys in their moms basement.

        Stop reading fake news and get out in the world, you will discover nearly everything you have been told is wrong.