Dumbo: CIA system to take over webcams, microphones(wikileaks.org)
wikileaks.org
Dumbo: CIA system to take over webcams, microphones
https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Dumbo
100 comments
Just because a threat vector is well known and not cutting edge does not make the SPECIFIC information of its existence, implementation, and capability completely worthless
Just very very close to worthless. Other than CIA and security cams, I'm straining to figure out what is worthful about this story. Can you help us out?
Confirmation that this is something real and not a theoretical risk. Similarly to Snowden, it wasn't newsworthy because it was possible and probably done, it was newsworthy because it existed and was currently done. (obviously the scope of this news is much more reduced)
If you are a US citizen, that tells you how you tax money is being spent. If you are a foreigner, you may have a few more ammunitions to get the funding for whatever security project you are working on.
Even on HN very few front page items are really worthy of anything more than procrastination material and it succeeded perfectly well at that: both you and I had better things to do than comment on this article.
That's a very blasé attitude btw, reminds me of the first time I have seen a wild tortoise, my family just commented: "yeah I see them all the time on TV, what's the interest?"
If you are a US citizen, that tells you how you tax money is being spent. If you are a foreigner, you may have a few more ammunitions to get the funding for whatever security project you are working on.
Even on HN very few front page items are really worthy of anything more than procrastination material and it succeeded perfectly well at that: both you and I had better things to do than comment on this article.
That's a very blasé attitude btw, reminds me of the first time I have seen a wild tortoise, my family just commented: "yeah I see them all the time on TV, what's the interest?"
Here's an article about hacking security cameras from 2012. It was the first hit on my google search.
https://www.wired.com/2012/05/cctv-hack/
This was public then and you can expect the black hats knew this years before. So again, what is new about this other than CIA? Yes, the CIA does these things; they wear black hats and that's also something we've known for quite some time.
Perhaps a more enlightening article would have been a wiki dump of manufacturers and distributors of these 'security' cameras not giving a shit about this problem.
But hey, Snowden.
https://www.wired.com/2012/05/cctv-hack/
This was public then and you can expect the black hats knew this years before. So again, what is new about this other than CIA? Yes, the CIA does these things; they wear black hats and that's also something we've known for quite some time.
Perhaps a more enlightening article would have been a wiki dump of manufacturers and distributors of these 'security' cameras not giving a shit about this problem.
But hey, Snowden.
From my comment, the SPECIFIC details of the tool's concepts of operation, implementation, and capability.
The field guide provides great detail on operations and limitations of a specific existing tool (sample GUI screen shots, potential detection threats from personal security products and full crash dumps, detection of cam software process restarts, abilities to stall NIC cards, abilities to BSOD, ability to corrupt existing files, limitations based on cam emulation, limitations of previously saved cam files, the tool's PE names(32bit wscupd.exe, 64bit running outside of system32 wermgr.exe. GUI.exe present in the same folder as above PEs), example of the log.txt file written to the attacking USB, information on differences between winXP requirements vs other systems(scanner.sys driver needs)).
The field guide provides great detail on operations and limitations of a specific existing tool (sample GUI screen shots, potential detection threats from personal security products and full crash dumps, detection of cam software process restarts, abilities to stall NIC cards, abilities to BSOD, ability to corrupt existing files, limitations based on cam emulation, limitations of previously saved cam files, the tool's PE names(32bit wscupd.exe, 64bit running outside of system32 wermgr.exe. GUI.exe present in the same folder as above PEs), example of the log.txt file written to the attacking USB, information on differences between winXP requirements vs other systems(scanner.sys driver needs)).
Could the warrantless search of laptops etc. at borders, and the demand for all passwords have something to do with such access?
First, that is CBP scooping up data at the border, not the CIA. If the CIA were targeting you, you would not know.
Second, CBP asks for your password. This is not the same as an administrator password, and certainly in the case of some business travelers, they may not know the admin creds.
Second, CBP asks for your password. This is not the same as an administrator password, and certainly in the case of some business travelers, they may not know the admin creds.
I don't have a real problem with this - physically accessing target systems to install spyware is exactly the way they should be doing things, as opposed to finding exploits that affect us all and keeping quiet about it.
With a warrant, oversight, and a lack of coordination with foreign governments.
Frankly, I think this is an unrealistic expectation. The whole point of spying/intelligence is that you operate in foreign environments without their knowledge with the assumption they may have a hostile response if you're discovered. The point is to get the unvarnished truth, not the information filtered through a foreign government which has its own objectives.
You also don't need a warrant for breaking into the systems of a non-citizen outside the borders of country initiating the hack.
As long as the various intelligence agencies are not operating within the borders of their own countries, targeting their own citizens or sharing information in totality with foreign agencies as quid-pro-quo to achieve the same (Five Eyes), I have no moral issue with intelligence agencies doing what they're supposed to do.
You also don't need a warrant for breaking into the systems of a non-citizen outside the borders of country initiating the hack.
As long as the various intelligence agencies are not operating within the borders of their own countries, targeting their own citizens or sharing information in totality with foreign agencies as quid-pro-quo to achieve the same (Five Eyes), I have no moral issue with intelligence agencies doing what they're supposed to do.
> As long as the various intelligence agencies are not operating within the borders of their own countries, targeting their own citizens or sharing information in totality with foreign agencies as quid-pro-quo to achieve the same (Five Eyes)
You mean the U.S. wholesale spying on the British for the British to circumvent British privacy laws and the British doing the same for the U.S.?
In a situation like this, there's little point in saying that intelligence agencies can't spy on Americans, because they're doing it anyway, they're just using a proxy to do so to bypass American laws.
You mean the U.S. wholesale spying on the British for the British to circumvent British privacy laws and the British doing the same for the U.S.?
In a situation like this, there's little point in saying that intelligence agencies can't spy on Americans, because they're doing it anyway, they're just using a proxy to do so to bypass American laws.
There remains no evidence of this happening, despite countless leaks from the intelligence communities of all involved countries. The members of Five Eyes, formerly BRUSA, explicitly don't spy on each other according to the agreement. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24715168
Everyone believes this myth now apparently, it is best not to bother pointing out the fact that there is no proof.
> Frankly, I think this is an unrealistic expectation. The whole point of spying/intelligence is that you operate in foreign environments without their knowledge with the assumption they may have a hostile response if you're discovered.
Here is an article from yesterday's Hollywood Reporter where a "genealogist" who just happens to work for the US federal government and has a Top Secret security clearance and claims to use "a global network of public databases" proudly talks about stalking and doxing a local Los Angeles celebrity:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/angelyne-la-billbo...
Here is some old news about NSA analysts stalking spouses/girlfriends/women they were interested in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24...
CIA/NSA analysts now think that abusing their illegal domestic surveillance programs to stalk and dox people is a fun hobby.
Here is an article from yesterday's Hollywood Reporter where a "genealogist" who just happens to work for the US federal government and has a Top Secret security clearance and claims to use "a global network of public databases" proudly talks about stalking and doxing a local Los Angeles celebrity:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/angelyne-la-billbo...
Here is some old news about NSA analysts stalking spouses/girlfriends/women they were interested in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24...
CIA/NSA analysts now think that abusing their illegal domestic surveillance programs to stalk and dox people is a fun hobby.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> sharing information in totality with foreign agencies as quid-pro-quo to achieve the same (Five Eyes)
But this is exactly how it works under the precise legal framework you've laid out. This is the problem.
To attack allies internal enemies needs to be prohibited.
But this is exactly how it works under the precise legal framework you've laid out. This is the problem.
To attack allies internal enemies needs to be prohibited.
It doesn't work like that. If the US wants to conduct an operation in the UK the UK must agree and is subject to its own laws in doing so. They have now declassified the UK/USA agreement so you can see for yourself.
> They have now declassified the UK/USA agreement so you can see for yourself.
You honestly believe that those "words on paper" have any kind of restrictive capacity on these agencies? If you really do, I've got a bridge to sell ya.
You honestly believe that those "words on paper" have any kind of restrictive capacity on these agencies? If you really do, I've got a bridge to sell ya.
None of the leaks have said anything otherwise. It would be a bombshell story if they were violating the agreement and spying on each other.
Actually leaves me with an optimistic view on webcam security.
How do you feel about foreign governments doing it to you and people you care about?
Pretty unfortunate, but this has always been a fact of life. If you are an American of interest, it would be naive to think that there is no chance a foreign intelligence service may be trying to watch you in the same way.
[deleted]
I fancy these sophisticated spy tools which only require physical and admin access to a target machine...
...maybe these are just 'decoys' to make everyone else think "their tools are pathetic"?
maybe they have stuff like james bond watches that can burn stuff with lasers & stuff.
maybe they have stuff like james bond watches that can burn stuff with lasers & stuff.
I would assume they have their ways of obtaining admin access. Probably those auth-bypass tools have a separate codename.
Dumbo itself needs admin access, but nobody said they don't use multiple tools in combination.
Dumbo itself needs admin access, but nobody said they don't use multiple tools in combination.
With the various NSA leaks, we've seen that this is exactly the process. One suite of tools to compromise different types of hardware, and another suite of tools to be loaded depending on what outcomes are desired.
It's worth remembering that the picture looks very different for an actor that's known to access 'virgin' devices before they arrive at buyers. If you can get unlimited physical access once, suddenly your primary goal switches from remote access to creating tools that can go undetected for as long as possible.
Exotic tools have a downside too. Eventually people are going to notice weird shit and get suspicious.
If the CIA didn't have this they really wouldn't be doing their job... The question, of course, is whether they have proper oversight.
We really need more companies like Purism. https://puri.sm/
Yeah, specifically outside of the US. Many times I've nearly bought one from puri.sm but as they're based in America I'd say there's a very high percentage any of those computers leaving the country will get spyware added in during transit.
And/or having the hardware killswitch modified.
What's so interesting/secure about this hardware? How is this more secure than me installing linux myself?
It has hardware switches for the camera and microphone, and it comes with an unfused CPU, allowing to disable Intel ME.
https://puri.sm/learn/hardware-kill-switches/
https://puri.sm/learn/intel-me/
https://puri.sm/learn/hardware-kill-switches/
https://puri.sm/learn/intel-me/
Hardware kill switches for camera, microphone, and fully open source software down to the firmware and bios. No proprietary blobs at all.
Can we get a wikileaks reveal on Julian Assanges finances?
Or Putin's finances, now that would be a bombshell.
Has any wealthy or powerful persons finances ever been leaked before (outside of the Panama leaks)? Or is this just popular political position to make regardless of relevance to reality?
There is a very big difference between the security of peoples financial and tax records compared to say... some 70yr olds private email account stored on a poorly secured home server. Not to mention someone like Putin would likely have layers of shell companies and layers of diversions where it wouldn't be of much use.
People like to pretend Wikileaks can hack and leak anything, and it's merely a political descision for them on who gets hacked. But they are merely a platform for leaks, publishing almost exclusively either opportunistic hacks (Manning leaks) or low hanging fruit (personal email servers) they recieve from other people. They don't direct a network of hackers to do their politically motivated bidding.
There is a very big difference between the security of peoples financial and tax records compared to say... some 70yr olds private email account stored on a poorly secured home server. Not to mention someone like Putin would likely have layers of shell companies and layers of diversions where it wouldn't be of much use.
People like to pretend Wikileaks can hack and leak anything, and it's merely a political descision for them on who gets hacked. But they are merely a platform for leaks, publishing almost exclusively either opportunistic hacks (Manning leaks) or low hanging fruit (personal email servers) they recieve from other people. They don't direct a network of hackers to do their politically motivated bidding.
As a supplement, I highly recommend (to anyone) watching William Browder's testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?431852-1/william-browder-overt...
edit: I was having trouble with the C-Span player recently, so here's a youtube cap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-RsAGjUXtg
One of the senators put it well when they said something like 'it plays out like a novel nobody would buy'.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?431852-1/william-browder-overt...
edit: I was having trouble with the C-Span player recently, so here's a youtube cap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-RsAGjUXtg
One of the senators put it well when they said something like 'it plays out like a novel nobody would buy'.
...would it?
That's an honest question. He's widely assumed to be corrupt, to have a large amount of money personally, and an enormous amount more at 1+ removes held by people connected to him. There's no sign that he intends to leave power, which means he can store plenty of it without any paperwork at all - just an implicit "you'll use this as I ask if I ever do ask".
But he's also virtually untouchable, and his wealth-hiding seems to be less "no one can find it" and more "no one can prove it so undeniably that it becomes inconvenient". I'm not convinced there's anything 'leakable' that would be particularly important.
That's an honest question. He's widely assumed to be corrupt, to have a large amount of money personally, and an enormous amount more at 1+ removes held by people connected to him. There's no sign that he intends to leave power, which means he can store plenty of it without any paperwork at all - just an implicit "you'll use this as I ask if I ever do ask".
But he's also virtually untouchable, and his wealth-hiding seems to be less "no one can find it" and more "no one can prove it so undeniably that it becomes inconvenient". I'm not convinced there's anything 'leakable' that would be particularly important.
I assume he has little money. Are you assuming he is compromised in some way and getting paid for it? OR do you think that Wikileaks itself is making a lot of money?
[deleted]
PRE-EDIT: The comment I was replying to got deleted. It expressed the sentiment that Assange and Wikileaks should not have aspersions cast upon them based on one's unhappiness that they leaked the Podesta mails, and that an interest in truth must include truth as a whole principle, rather than wanting only truths that reinforce one's political preferences.
----
Furthermore, beyond the campaign coverage, Wikileaks has revealed a lot of non-election related things over the last year, including CIA programs to remotely hijack any Samsung SmartTV and turn it into a listening device.
Wikileaks appear to be staying true to their mission. It's sad that there is such a strong impulse to discredit the organization as a whole, and ignore/derail large amounts of the absolutely critical work they are doing, just because the group exposed the corrupt practices of one's favored political candidate.
----
Furthermore, beyond the campaign coverage, Wikileaks has revealed a lot of non-election related things over the last year, including CIA programs to remotely hijack any Samsung SmartTV and turn it into a listening device.
Wikileaks appear to be staying true to their mission. It's sad that there is such a strong impulse to discredit the organization as a whole, and ignore/derail large amounts of the absolutely critical work they are doing, just because the group exposed the corrupt practices of one's favored political candidate.
All you have to do is scan through Wikileaks' twitter posts to determine what side they are on.
It takes a certain willful blindness to think otherwise.
It takes a certain willful blindness to think otherwise.
Well, the first several tweets in their stream right now are: Project Dumbo (this story, a leak against the CIA), a leaked series of documents on Swedish arms sales to India, a link to leaked transcripts of Trump's calls with Mexican and Australian leaders, a criticism of the Washington Post's decision to leave "minor spelling and grammatical errors" in the leaked documents intact (as these could be useful in identifying the leaker), a criticism that U.S. interference in Venezuela has worsened their governance crisis, and finally, two tweets that link to leaked phone calls which strongly imply Seth Rich was Wikileaks's source for the Podesta mail dumps.
That seems to be pretty much what you'd expect from Wikileaks, no? A bunch of links to raw documents and cited critiques on international meddling and journalistic practice? That stream includes a criticism of U.S. meddling in international affairs, two leaks against the Trump admin, and a criticism of the WaPo's incompetence in sanitizing their leak, thus risking their inside man.
How does it reveal "the side" that Wikileaks is on? If it's simply a matter of willful blindness, please enlighten me; I've got my eyes open here.
That seems to be pretty much what you'd expect from Wikileaks, no? A bunch of links to raw documents and cited critiques on international meddling and journalistic practice? That stream includes a criticism of U.S. meddling in international affairs, two leaks against the Trump admin, and a criticism of the WaPo's incompetence in sanitizing their leak, thus risking their inside man.
How does it reveal "the side" that Wikileaks is on? If it's simply a matter of willful blindness, please enlighten me; I've got my eyes open here.
They are on the side of transparency and seek to correct propaganda spread about them. They did not choose to be the left's whipping boy, but are in a position of defense.
“That’s now how this works. That’s not how any of this works.”
how would money even have value to him? gourmet food? more WL staff? what else would matter to him?
I wonder if it's the same account used to pay his RT wages. I mean, why change it?
You know, the CIA could probably avoid a little public push-back simply by not naming their system penetration components like the demented 1984 creeps that they are.
"The Brutal Kangaroo project consists of the following components: Drifting Deadline is the thumbdrive infection tool, Shattered Assurance is a server tool that handles automated infection of thumbdrives (as the primary mode of propagation for the Brutal Kangaroo suite), Broken Promise is the Brutal Kangaroo postprocessor (to evaluate collected information) and Shadow is the primary persistence mechanism [...]"
"The Brutal Kangaroo project consists of the following components: Drifting Deadline is the thumbdrive infection tool, Shattered Assurance is a server tool that handles automated infection of thumbdrives (as the primary mode of propagation for the Brutal Kangaroo suite), Broken Promise is the Brutal Kangaroo postprocessor (to evaluate collected information) and Shadow is the primary persistence mechanism [...]"
They use a perl script for naming. In WWII some nazi radar systems had badly picked codenames.
The title is misleading. This tool is to mute all the speakers, disable all the cameras and network adapter. I think it's required for a meeting etc. A better program maybe just pull the power off.
64-bit XP is MOST CERTAINLY supported by this attack - it's the same kernel/codebase as Server 2K3 and Server 2K3 is indeed attackable with Dumbo since it's the same Vista kernel and codebase.
And if 32-bit XP is supported, you can almost guarantee that Windows 2000 is supported by this attack as well, since XP is literally built on the 2K kernel.
Well, never could say I trusted Wikileaks with 100% accurate information.
And if 32-bit XP is supported, you can almost guarantee that Windows 2000 is supported by this attack as well, since XP is literally built on the 2K kernel.
Well, never could say I trusted Wikileaks with 100% accurate information.
Since the purpose of the software is to "disable webcams, microphones" (the "takeover" part is not implied in the text) using a USB stick one my assume it more efficient to use the power switch instead...
With every new publication Wikileaks just confirms it's now just an agency of the Russian Goverment whose purpose it's to undermine the confidence of the american people in their institutions.
Can webcams and microphones be turned on without turning on the hardware indicator lights by someone who doesn't have physical access to the device in question?
It's a shame that when I see "Wikileaks reveals CIA" I'm thinking "Hmm, I wonder what's happening today RE Russia" instead of being concerned with the actual release.
It's really sad that this is what Wikileaks has turned into.
Regardless of the authenticity of the information, they clearly only release information when it is politically beneficial for their(?) motives.
Regardless of the authenticity of the information, they clearly only release information when it is politically beneficial for their(?) motives.
Right - it seemed like they supported "the people" in the early days. They exposed Bush and Obama when they had things worth exposing.
Then came the promises of damning Bank of America leaks that never materialized, holding on to Guantanamo docs until NYT scooped them, the 2010 insurance file that was never cracked, the 2016 insurance file that was never cracked, ...
Then came the promises of damning Bank of America leaks that never materialized, holding on to Guantanamo docs until NYT scooped them, the 2010 insurance file that was never cracked, the 2016 insurance file that was never cracked, ...
> Right - it seemed like they supported "the people" in the early days. They exposed Bush and Obama when they had things worth exposing.
Well they're still supporting "the people", just not the ones you align with. Which of course means they've lost all credibility and we should ignore them now, right?
Well they're still supporting "the people", just not the ones you align with. Which of course means they've lost all credibility and we should ignore them now, right?
That's a really dishonest argument.
How are they supporting the people? How does this benefit society? All this does is attempt to take away the spotlight from other shit happening in our country. Every major country develops hacking software. This isn't news. This isn't even surprising or ground-breaking. It's not even that invasive, it requires physical access AND an admin account!
This is just a distraction. Society is no better off with this information being public.
How are they supporting the people? How does this benefit society? All this does is attempt to take away the spotlight from other shit happening in our country. Every major country develops hacking software. This isn't news. This isn't even surprising or ground-breaking. It's not even that invasive, it requires physical access AND an admin account!
This is just a distraction. Society is no better off with this information being public.
Hah no, they lost credibility with the Turkey emails. They hoard secrets yet dumped those without even checking to see what they were - what is that about?
plus it's really only American/+hegemony "leaks" they traffic in these days. I'm sure there's much more juicy Russian/Putin-esca malware and intelligence tools, policies, etc. Granted, those are often obscured in black market, or other 3rd parties, at least based on what we know of, but Brian Krebs is doing a much better job in "exposing" things than Assange at this point.
There is a strong circumstantial case for WikiLeaks being either compromised or having caved to threats from someone. Most of the evidence points to Russia but in the intelligence world you can never be sure. Could just as easily be someone who wants us to think it is Russia. Welcome to the puzzle palace.
I think WikiLeaks started with noble intent but it's really the depths of naivete to think a small volunteer org can play spy games with the big boys.
What we need is a fully decentralized WikiLeaks type platform that is easy enough to use that regular non crypto nerds can use it. No identifiable centralized organization can really be trusted to be objective or impartial or to be resistant to compromise.
I think WikiLeaks started with noble intent but it's really the depths of naivete to think a small volunteer org can play spy games with the big boys.
What we need is a fully decentralized WikiLeaks type platform that is easy enough to use that regular non crypto nerds can use it. No identifiable centralized organization can really be trusted to be objective or impartial or to be resistant to compromise.
A lot of the problems seem to be connected to Assange's leadership. That was the big reason for the 2010 exodus of Wikileaks members, and it seems like the organization has steadily declined since then (and now they're doing bizarre things like pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy).
It's also a shame that whenever I see comments like this I'm thinking why is a HN user trying to divert attention to a whole different topic?
There is so much agenda driven propaganda on social media now.
There is so much agenda driven propaganda on social media now.
hard to think of a better medium for psyops... other than TV/news which is already covered and becoming more and more limited in effectiveness
Yes. From all sides. It's sad thing to witness because my naive young self viewed social media as the promise of free information flow, honest interaction and entertainment. I guess that was wishful thinking.
Spy agency has spy tools. I am shocked.
Requires admin access and physically inserting a USB drive.
Wikileaks will next reveal water is wet. Why does anyone pay attention to these charlatans?
Wikileaks will next reveal water is wet. Why does anyone pay attention to these charlatans?
dsfyu404ed(10)
russialeaks
Wikileaks is a tool of the KGB. Why are we sharing their disinformation here?
So?
This just in - people with physical and administrative access to a machine can install monitoring software - news at 11. Be sure to tell every MSP or Enterprise IT group to tune in.