Western intelligence hacked Yandex to spy on accounts(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Western intelligence hacked Yandex to spy on accounts
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-yandex-exclusive-idUSKCN1TS2SX
100 comments
'Western' meaning the usual aggressors, the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance of the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Not particularly. The last known time a western aggressor hacked into such a Russian intelligence company, Kaspersky, it was revealed to be the Dutch intelligence agency, sharing their info with the US. So it could be any of the 5 eyes or any of their partners.
Unsurprisingly Yandex say that this was detected early, no damage was done and no user data was accessed via the hacking.
Obviously that rings hollow... but, I wonder, what kind of security protocol do high gov officials in RU use, do they follow better security hygiene than the West?
This release coincides with G20 meetings. Intentional or happenstance?
Obviously that rings hollow... but, I wonder, what kind of security protocol do high gov officials in RU use, do they follow better security hygiene than the West?
This release coincides with G20 meetings. Intentional or happenstance?
No one follows good security hygiene anywhere. It's certainly not a cultural thing.
Almost sounds like a sci-fi thing. A species that has evolved to experience physiological disgust at the idea of doing insecure things.
Battlestar Galactica, more or less
We're all safe if none of us get seduced by sleezy suspicious sexy cylons
Avoid Tinder
Avoid Tinder
wasn’t it the case that only one ship survived the cylons? and it was because the ship was ancient and lacked computerized management?
It wasn't so much the lack of computerized management as it was the lack of connections to the rest of the outside world.
My recollection is that even the individual areas of the ship were not networked with each other at all, so the whole ship relies on humans to relay commands around. The whole ship was designed this way to fight Cylons, and indeed had beat them. The Cylons were thought extinct, so the new generation of ships were all networked and thoroughly pwned as soon as the Cylons reappeared.
https://galactica.fandom.com/wiki/Galactica
https://galactica.fandom.com/wiki/Galactica
Something like this maybe?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/russia-reverts...
;)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/russia-reverts...
;)
I could swear there was something recent I've read about determining which keys are being pushed by hearing the sound of the keyboard...
Are you thinking of this recent paper about acoustic side channel attacks on smartphones?
Hearing your touch: A new acoustic side channel on smartphones (http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11137)
Hearing your touch: A new acoustic side channel on smartphones (http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11137)
Oh wow! This wasn't the one I was talking about, but very cool nonetheless. It's similar, but with keyboards. I hate posting this without evidence, but I think there was also something having to do with watching a plant or a pane of glass vibrate to know what is being said inside a room. The keyboard noise and the vibrations may also be unrelated. If I can find these articles, I'll come back and post them here.
I have a bad habit of mumbling to myself what I am typing, when there is nobody around, sometimes I will even read aloud what I just typed back to make sure it makes sense.
If I was to use a Typewriter, you could probably put a recording device inside it and work out what I was writing about that way.
If I was to use a Typewriter, you could probably put a recording device inside it and work out what I was writing about that way.
Yeh it was used many times during the Cold War by both sides.
Heh. But do they stay true to that protocol?
[deleted]
As far as I know, Putin says that he doesn't use mobile phones and computers. Can it be considered a security measure? Other officials, like PM Medvedev, are better with technology and had their devices hacked: [1]
Regarding Yandex, they have good talents there so what they say might be true.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/dmitry-medvede...
Regarding Yandex, they have good talents there so what they say might be true.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/dmitry-medvede...
Kind of ethically dubious to this type of work. There is moral outrage when Google tries to do military contracting, but none against when federal government doing this type of extra-legal actions.
I expect my government to spy on foreign citizens and governments. If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look. Google is a private firm and subject to market forces like boycotts over military contracting. It's because governments and Google are two very different things.
And you also rely on them for information as to who is truly terrible.
"And you also rely on them for information as to who is truly terrible."
No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things.
Unlike in some regions, where journalists are murdered, sometimes by the state.
No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things.
Unlike in some regions, where journalists are murdered, sometimes by the state.
> No, not at all. Thankfully we have many people in press, innumerable sources of information, and a lot of public discourse on these things.
That sure helped in Iraq's case. It's not like the press just repeated what the government told it.
That sure helped in Iraq's case. It's not like the press just repeated what the government told it.
The worst kind of idiot
Personal attacks, flamebait, unsubstantive comments will get you banned on HN. Can you please not do those? We're hoping for a site that's a bit better than internet default.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Really? Because your government treats an attack on digital infrastructure as an act of war.
So why do you war so much yourself?
So why do you war so much yourself?
Because any sane person accepts the fact that some games are zero-sum or close to it, and in these games, his interests (and, by proxy, interests of his country) are more important to them. You want your country to spy on others and at the same time stop others from spying on you.
I'm not sure what zero sum game they're playing that requires hacking Yandex, but I'd strongly prefer if my government used the expertise of the hackers for fixing the security issues that enable these hacks instead of keeping them secret for the use as weapons.
> I'd strongly prefer if my government used the expertise of the hackers for fixing the security issues that enable these hacks instead of keeping them secret for the use as weapons
How have you come to this conclusion?
The reason I'm asking is not that I hold the opposite opinion. It's that I think that this dilemma is inherently hard as there are very good arguments for both points of view and I cannot see an easy way to find any solution to it.
How have you come to this conclusion?
The reason I'm asking is not that I hold the opposite opinion. It's that I think that this dilemma is inherently hard as there are very good arguments for both points of view and I cannot see an easy way to find any solution to it.
But in consequence you accept that the US committed an act of war against Russia and the Netherlands? I would be more careful with that and if I were a citizen I would request someone in charge to take immediate consequences because the cost/benefit-calculation turns against you if it becomes public. Zero-sum game, non?
Luckily passive aggressiveness isn't an act of war at least.
Luckily passive aggressiveness isn't an act of war at least.
Remind me again when the CIA used Chemical Weapons (a war crime -Skripal Style ) on Russian and Dutch soil
That is not a validly deducted argument and not the topic.
There is a lot of info about crimes comitted by the CIA, but this isn't about any naughtyness competition.
There is a lot of info about crimes comitted by the CIA, but this isn't about any naughtyness competition.
If your going to tone police me spell the words right - and if you are going to use the term "war crime" use it correctly.
Deploying Weapons of Mass Applicability i.e. nerve agents is a "War Crime" according to Geneva conventions.
Deploying Weapons of Mass Applicability i.e. nerve agents is a "War Crime" according to Geneva conventions.
I didn't use the term war crime. I used 'act of war' which is something different to my knowledge but includes attacks on digital infrastructure as defined by the US government.
Pardon my spelling, not my native tongue, but judging from your answer it must have obfuscated the meaning of my comment.
Pardon my spelling, not my native tongue, but judging from your answer it must have obfuscated the meaning of my comment.
>If your going to tone police me spell the words right
If you're going to tell someone else to spell right, you should make sure to spell "you're" correctly yourself.
If you're going to tell someone else to spell right, you should make sure to spell "you're" correctly yourself.
> this isn't about any naughtyness competition
But it absolutely is. Whataboutism is an illogical thing if you're judging actions of some actor on some abstract moral scale, this is true.
But that's not the conversation here here, as we're talking not about ethic, but about public perception and rationality of offensive actions. And in this game, the context of actions of adversaries matters a great deal: if your opponents do something much worse, smaller on your behalf are expected to draw much less scrutiny and therefore, become much "cheaper".
But it absolutely is. Whataboutism is an illogical thing if you're judging actions of some actor on some abstract moral scale, this is true.
But that's not the conversation here here, as we're talking not about ethic, but about public perception and rationality of offensive actions. And in this game, the context of actions of adversaries matters a great deal: if your opponents do something much worse, smaller on your behalf are expected to draw much less scrutiny and therefore, become much "cheaper".
> committed an act of war
In a legal sense, may be. I don't find this important though.
> cost/benefit-calculation turns against you if it becomes public
It has become public, and I'm yet to see any actual cost.
In a legal sense, may be. I don't find this important though.
> cost/benefit-calculation turns against you if it becomes public
It has become public, and I'm yet to see any actual cost.
> If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look.
I can't tell whether the "they" in this sentence is referring to your government or the foreign one.
I can't tell whether the "they" in this sentence is referring to your government or the foreign one.
From an employees perspective I do not think federal government is much different from any other large employer.
With the notable exception that it's usually a pretty cush gig.
It's definitely not 'extra-legal'.
Espionage against a country that has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at you, and practices using them, is a very responsible thing to do, and very much sanctioned by government.
Espionage against a country that has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at you, and practices using them, is a very responsible thing to do, and very much sanctioned by government.
Well then by your logic, spying on US citizens by the US government is perfectly fine, since it would count at 'espionage against a country that has 10,000 nukes, used it a couple of times to incinerate a few 100ks people, and is very much sanctioned by government".
No, that's not even remotely an extension of the 'logic' of my comment.
Seems the exact same reasoning to me. Especially since we're talking about US, which just revoked visas to international court prosecutor, which dared to suggest an investigation, which would look into any possible war crimes that US soldiers may have commited in Afghanistan ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47822839 ).
A country which so aggresively attacks a person that merely suggests to look into possible breakage of a law cannot have clean hands or be trustworthy.
A country which so aggresively attacks a person that merely suggests to look into possible breakage of a law cannot have clean hands or be trustworthy.
I'm rather fond of Yandex. They have great engineers and make a solid product. Being Russian doesn't bother me, as I have nothing against the Russians. Yandex search has a fantastic image search that rival most others. And the fact that one does not have to provide a mobile number is a plus.
Their search engine is not bad too, and I use it as my primary search engine. They also helpfully provide a link to other search engines so that if you are not satisfied with their search result you can search on the other search engines with just a click. This ensures that they get crucial data (the search query) to improve their search results and also doesn't leave their user disgruntled due to non-relevant search result.
On the flip side, they are just as intrusive as Google. When I installed their browser or mail app (don't remember which one) it asked for my ios PIN / password (no ios app ever requires a PIN / password for installation - and no, I am not talking about an iCloud password which is required for app installation if you have enabled it for app installation).
On the flip side, they are just as intrusive as Google. When I installed their browser or mail app (don't remember which one) it asked for my ios PIN / password (no ios app ever requires a PIN / password for installation - and no, I am not talking about an iCloud password which is required for app installation if you have enabled it for app installation).
Their reverse image search is beyond anything else out there. It's incredible.
Not to mention ClickHouse
That's sad. One of the main features of Yandex mail was that your data was reasonably safe from Western intelligence.
aswanson(1)
In my view, if you’re hacking for espionage purposes as a nation who defends classical liberalism, then I’d argue your actions are justified. I do not understand why sources involved with this (or related stories) would talk to reporters.
Despite our flaws, there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US. To suggest otherwise is advocating moral relativism in my opinion.
I do, however, support a pardon for Snowden and Assange.
Despite our flaws, there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US. To suggest otherwise is advocating moral relativism in my opinion.
I do, however, support a pardon for Snowden and Assange.
>Despite our flaws, there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US.
the difference is you identify the US as 'our'.
the difference is you identify the US as 'our'.
Err? So, suggesting a uniform standard that says hacking is bad is advocating moral relativism?
There is no end to this "ends justify the means" crap. "Well, we're the good guys, so it's ok for us to torture, depose governments, nuke civilians, fix elections, assassinate foreign leaders, spy on our citizens..." Etc.
There is no end to this "ends justify the means" crap. "Well, we're the good guys, so it's ok for us to torture, depose governments, nuke civilians, fix elections, assassinate foreign leaders, spy on our citizens..." Etc.
It doesn't matter whether "we're" the good guys or even if there are any good guys. Where there are groups with different interests there will always be conflict.
Given that there will always be conflict, you can choose to do nothing and be out-competed, you can act in the interest of the group to which you belong, or you can act in the interest of the other side.
It's possible to argue that these actions are not, in fact, in the interest of your group, but that has nothing to do with some facile Hollywood conception of international relations as good guys vs. bad guys.
Given that there will always be conflict, you can choose to do nothing and be out-competed, you can act in the interest of the group to which you belong, or you can act in the interest of the other side.
It's possible to argue that these actions are not, in fact, in the interest of your group, but that has nothing to do with some facile Hollywood conception of international relations as good guys vs. bad guys.
Yes, we need to hack the British for their opposition to the classical liberal position of free exchange of slaves between states.
Why would Assange, who is neither citizen nor resident of US, need a pardon from US? That's a political case.
Are you having a laugh? "as a nation who defends classical liberalism" Why should: "actions are justified"
If you think you hold yourself to a higher purpose, then why not behave as such. I'm not sure what "moral relativism" even means.
"there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US" - no, that's bollocks. I'll assert that and stick to it.
If you think you hold yourself to a higher purpose, then why not behave as such. I'm not sure what "moral relativism" even means.
"there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US" - no, that's bollocks. I'll assert that and stick to it.
given this persons previous posts, i wouldn’t take what they’re saying too seriously:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061936
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061936
One of these days, New Zealand will turn on us, and we will all be speaking Eeenglish and living in hobbit holes.
Are we at all surprised by this?
Really, it's a lot like the allowable amount of insect parts that the US Govt. Food and Drug Administration allows in food. You're shocked a bit to read it, but the truth is you've been living it (and eating it) for some time.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels for example for what I mean about "allowable amount of insect parts"
Really, it's a lot like the allowable amount of insect parts that the US Govt. Food and Drug Administration allows in food. You're shocked a bit to read it, but the truth is you've been living it (and eating it) for some time.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels for example for what I mean about "allowable amount of insect parts"
If we weren’t hacking into Yandex, I’d be asking for new chiefs at the intelligence agencies who would. What the heck of the point of an agency if you’re not gathering intelligence?
What does hacking into Yandex give us other than a reason for Russia to do the same?
It’s a dance. You complain about every hack, every interference in elections and claim moral superiority while doing the exact same hoping no one finds out but when they do always shoot the messenger instead of defending yourself. Thanks WikiLeaks for showing the world
"every interference in elections and claim moral superiority while doing the exact same hoping no one finds out "
No, the West does not claim 'moral superiority' over Russia due to any kind of ostensible 'non participation' in espionage.
There is no 'hoping they don't find out' because it's accepted that it's happening. We only 'hope they don't find out' about specific activities.
No, the West does not claim 'moral superiority' over Russia due to any kind of ostensible 'non participation' in espionage.
There is no 'hoping they don't find out' because it's accepted that it's happening. We only 'hope they don't find out' about specific activities.
I have tracked a number of state sponsored actors from all sorts of countries back to Yandex accounts. They are the go to account provider when you need semi-legit emails and don't want the provider to cooperate with the US.
It would give US intelligence insights in to operations from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc.
It would give US intelligence insights in to operations from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc.
Do you think they don’t?
They are doing the same. Intelligence is dirty business but it has to be done.
Why does it have to be done this way? Can you provide more sources that show that aggresively attacking a nation's company this way is actually outweighing the downsides?
Note that I'm not questioning the existence of intelligence services, I'm asking you to provide basis that directly attacking companies like that is worth it. Also where's the line that makes this "dirty" business worth it?
Note that I'm not questioning the existence of intelligence services, I'm asking you to provide basis that directly attacking companies like that is worth it. Also where's the line that makes this "dirty" business worth it?
Must it be done?
No. The intelligence is crap; the CIA has missed basically everything important in its history. It is frequently politicized. It only goes to the President, who might ignore it or misinterpret it. We do much better just by reading newspapers well.
> missed basically everything important in its history
Or the things it has caught don't make newspaper headlines. Because the plots were defused, and thus can't be used to cause chaos and fear in citizens, something newspapers seem to delight in.
Or the things it has caught don't make newspaper headlines. Because the plots were defused, and thus can't be used to cause chaos and fear in citizens, something newspapers seem to delight in.
> Or the things it has caught don't make newspaper headlines. Because the plots were defused, and thus can't be used to cause chaos and fear in citizens, something newspapers seem to delight in.
That sounds like conspiracy thinking. The media isn't able to suppress the CIA's good deeds, and I don't believe they'd try. "Big alien invasion averted thanks to heroic CIA agent" is a great headline. So great in fact, that fiction books are written on that premise.
With all the minor and major leaks from the intelligence community, they're supposed to have a super tight and successful conspiracy going to hide the fact that they are actually effective? I have some doubts, both on the technical part (large conspiracies are hard) and the reasoning.
That sounds like conspiracy thinking. The media isn't able to suppress the CIA's good deeds, and I don't believe they'd try. "Big alien invasion averted thanks to heroic CIA agent" is a great headline. So great in fact, that fiction books are written on that premise.
With all the minor and major leaks from the intelligence community, they're supposed to have a super tight and successful conspiracy going to hide the fact that they are actually effective? I have some doubts, both on the technical part (large conspiracies are hard) and the reasoning.
The CIA constantly says “we have prevented X terrorist attacks in the last Y years“ and nobody believes them
We have no reason to believe them.
They have a demonstrable history of lies and terrorist-style anti-democratic activities themselves for political and economic purposes.
They have a demonstrable history of lies and terrorist-style anti-democratic activities themselves for political and economic purposes.
There’s no arguing with you. You’d rather believe that you’re being persecuted than in the complexities of actual reality.
Please don't cross into personal attack on HN. It doesn't help, and provokes worse from others.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yes
Why? Based on what military / social doctrine must aggressive attacking of Yandex "MUST" be done? What's there to gain and what's there to lose?
Can you explain the reasoning beyond "yes"?
Can you explain the reasoning beyond "yes"?
> Based on what military / social doctrine must aggressive attacking of Yandex "MUST" be done?
Information is power and the "right" information, even more so.
Information is power and the "right" information, even more so.
>other than a reason for Russia to do the same?
lmao
why would Russia need this reason?
lmao
why would Russia need this reason?
"What does hacking into Yandex give us"
Russia does not need this or any other reason, they are already doing this to the extent they can. The public nature of this will provide some political cover, but that's it.
As to 'what it gets' it entirely depends on the kind of information that was obtained, the inherent risks and cost, the targets etc..
Maybe there were specific targets, a specific needs, maybe they were casting a net - who knows.
Russia does not need this or any other reason, they are already doing this to the extent they can. The public nature of this will provide some political cover, but that's it.
As to 'what it gets' it entirely depends on the kind of information that was obtained, the inherent risks and cost, the targets etc..
Maybe there were specific targets, a specific needs, maybe they were casting a net - who knows.
Consider what it would take to guarantee that there are absolutely no insect parts in a given volume of food. Insects are everywhere, and it's almost impossible to eliminate them with total confidence from every step of the food supply chain. Even if it were possible, it would be incredibly expensive.
Unless you want your yoghurt to cost $100 a pot, you have to accept that some insect parts will find their way into some food. The point of regulation is to ensure that the amount is minimized. If the standard was zero parts, food prices would skyrocket, many food suppliers would go out of business, and poor people wouldn't be able to eat. So the standard is some reasonable low level.
These things are always about tradeoffs and not absolutes.
Unless you want your yoghurt to cost $100 a pot, you have to accept that some insect parts will find their way into some food. The point of regulation is to ensure that the amount is minimized. If the standard was zero parts, food prices would skyrocket, many food suppliers would go out of business, and poor people wouldn't be able to eat. So the standard is some reasonable low level.
These things are always about tradeoffs and not absolutes.
Except eating insects is not that big of a deal and not at all the same thing as espionage...
Insect parts in general aren't harmful. In fact insects are commonly eaten in many cultures.
I've heard that people who think they're allergic to chocolate are actually allergic to the cockroaches bits are in most chocolate. Not sure how well proven that is though.